The assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‘dividend’ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances.
IFCI Ltd. Versus TFCI Ltd.- Delhi High Court – Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as ‘IFCI’) owns 37.85% of shares of respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as ‘TFCI’). On 26th November, 2010 IFCI sent a requisition to TFCI for convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (for short ‘EOGM’) with the objective of appointing four new directors and removal and replacement of one director on the Board of TFCI. However, TFCI vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010 questioned the validity of the requisition on the ground that though it was signed by the Company Secretary of IFCI, but specific authorisation/board resolution to file such requisition had not been annexed and it requested IFCI to send the said board resolution within a period of one week. Subsequently, on not getting the said information, TFCI through its board meeting held on 14th December, 2010 decided not to convene EOGM of TFCI. On receiving this information, IFCI on 15th December, 2010 initiated the process under Section 169(6) of the Act for convening an EOGM on 17th January, 2011. IFCI then filed the present Company Petition No. 124(ND) of 2010 under Sections 398 and 402 of the Act on the same day.
Mohan Meakin Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Merely because the claim was not made out under one particular provision of the Act, but was so made out under another provision of law, the assessee could not be debarred to raise such legal question. It is legally permissible to raise question of deduction under Section 37 of the Act even if it was not raised before the authorities below.
The term transfer used in Article 12(4) does not refer to absolute transfer of right of ownership. The assessee, a non-resident company engaged in the business of providing consultancy for infrastructure projects, entered into an agreement with the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for providing technical drawings and reports to NHAI for its infrastructure projects. The assessee was required to investigate the availability and viability of various modern technologies to ensure most economical cost estimate without affecting the quality of work. The scope of the services included preparation of the detailed project report, which covered the entire design for rehabilitation and strengthening of the existing carriage ways and required structures. It also included the study of environmental resettlement and rehabilitation needs as per the guidelines of the Government of India.
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.Vs.THE CHAIRMAN, ESI CORPORATION & ORS (DELHI HIGH COURT) -The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order FAO 124/2002 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No.19/99, whereby it was held that the appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act.
Recently Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T&D vs. ADIT ruled that the Revenue can reopen the assessment proceedings on change of opinion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Such re-opening of the assessment by the Income Tax department is legal where no return has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year in dispute, high court said.
Delhi High Court (the High Court) in case of DIT v. SNC Lavalin International Inc [2011] 332 ITR 314 (Del) held that fees received by the taxpayer for providing technical drawings and reports in relation to infrastructure projects would qualify as Fees for Included Services under India-Canada tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, tax was to be deducted at 15 percent on payments made to the taxpayer. Further, the High Court observed that the term transfer as used in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty does not refer to absolute transfer of ownership; but refers to transfer of technical drawings or designs for the use or the benefit of other party.
With respect to the Scheme, the tax department had raised similar objections before the Gujarat High Court, which after considering the contentions of both, the tax department and the petitioner company had dismissed the petition thereon. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending before the Division Bench. The Delhi High Court, contrary to the order of the Gujarat High Court, has relied on settled judicial precedents and has passed the order sanctioning the Scheme.
S E Investments Limited Vs Union of India and Others- The Delhi High Court held that there is no provision for charging stamp duty on the increase in authorized stamp duty in Stamp Act. A statute authorizing the levy of stamp duty is in the nature of a fiscal statute, hence stamp duty cannot be levied except by the authority of law. The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of AV Fernandez vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1957 SC 657) and
CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessed to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision. Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the Explanationn offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow.
