Rajesh Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It is found that there were discrepancies in the book result filed, traced on the scrutiny of the books made by the Assessing Officer which could not be properly replied/ explained. So, action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the book result and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) in view of the facts and circumstances is found to be justified and proper which action is upheld.
JDIT Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- The stand taken by the appellant in its return of income has been upheld by the ld. High Court. Since, the quantum additions in both the assessment years under appeal has already been deleted by the ld. ITAT, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2003- 04 & 2004- 05. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the entire addition has been deleted the order of the CIT(A) holding that the penalty order does not survive cannot be faulted with.
ITO Vs. Berger Imp ex India (ITAT Delhi)- CIT (A) after considering all these submissions has observed that the assessee had started efforts and other activities for its trade though there is no purchase and sale during the initial period. The assessee had given employment to seven persons for marketing activities and has set up infrastructure for running the business at Chennai. The shop rent, electricity bill and telephone bills have been paid and on these facts it cannot be denied that the assessee had commenced the business. In the trade activity there is no preoperative period as the same is required in manufacturing activity and, thus, he has held that the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the loss claimed by the assessee.
ACIT Vs. M/s Sikka Papers Mills Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- In this case the identity of the share holders has not been established in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessing Officer issued commission u/s. 131(d) to the departmental officers in Lucknow and Agra as well as and asked for information 133(6) of the Act directly from the share applicants. The letters issued by registered post to the aforesaid share applicant companies u/s. 133(6) remained unserved while the departmental officers found that no such companies existed at the given address.
PTC India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.9.2011 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was placed before the Bench. The date of hearing was intimated to the assessee on the date appeal was filed. Signatures of the person filing the appeal in the Registry are available on record as such the appeal was passed over twice.
ACIT Vs. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in A.R.J. Security Printers’ case [2003] 264 ITR 276 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi ), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts.
Whether the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,03,000/- in the partner’s capital account u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee had no evidence to prove the identity
Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The facts are that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 7,80,500/-, being the fees paid to Registrar of Companies for raising authorized capital. It is the admitted position of law that the expenditure is not revenue in nature and, therefore, it is not deductible in computing the total income. It is also the admitted fact that two decisions of the Supreme Court, adverse to the assessee, held field when the return was filed.
Base year for calculation of index cost of acquisition of the shares in terms of Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act, acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance (one of the modes specified in Section 49(1) of the Act) should be taken as financial year 1981-82 when such shares were acquired by the previous owner prior to 1st April, 1981. As decided by bobbay high court also in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Hridey Vikram (ITAT Delhi)- CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax payable in the present appeal being below Rs. 3 lacs, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable in view of CBDT Instruction.
