Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – Assessee has raised a specific ground that order passed u/s 143(3) was not valid in as much as there is no proof of valid service of notice u/s 143(2) within the limitation period of 12 months, as per proviso to section 143(2). We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not properly given a finding on this issue. He has only observed that the grounds and the arguments of the assessee are not very strong. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should pass a speaking order on this issue incorporating his specific finding in this regard. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the same afresh.
ITO vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Kesarwani (ITAT Delhi) – Impugned addition in this regard were made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has failed to provide the necessary documentary evidence with regard to the transactions. We find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee without elaborately discussing the subject and without referring to the cogent material in this regard. In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Assessee is directed to provide the necessary details to the Assessing Officer in this regard. Accordingly, the issue stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer .
Ina Raja Memorial Education Trust Vs DIT (Exemptions) – (ITAT Delhi) – In this case, the assessee made an application on 24.2.2011 in Form No. 10G, seeking renewal of exemption u/s 80G of the Act, which has been rejected by the ld. CIT(A) by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish bills/vouchers of expenses and certain other details as stated by him in para 2 of his order. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that proviso to clause (vi) of Section 80(G) sub-section (5) has been omitted by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009.
Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, the New India Insurance Co. or other Insurance Company in India, who avails the services of the assessee as a broker in the process of the re-insurance of the risk is left with no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to bring the services rendered by the assessee within the ambit of Article 13(4)(c) of the Treaty.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal is a fact finding authority and should have adjudicated the matter on merits. We are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue is not at all substantial and the amount in dispute is quite insignificant, considering that the case is one of a block assessment. There is no justification for the Income Tax Department to go on burdening the Tribunal, the Court with every case right up to the end. Apart from burdening the Tribunal and Courts, it also causes avoidable expenses to the Assessee. It is common knowledge that the Assessee has to pay for legal fees and merely because the Income Tax Department has got unlimited resources, there is no justification that every case should be dragged on. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal because of the insignificant amount involved in the matter. No substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Held by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Bhambri
Sanjay Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the instant case, surrender made by the assessee during the remand proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the statement of Shri Sanjay Rastogi recorded on oath on 27.9.2005, has never been retracted either during the reassessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings at any stage. The assessee has not even attempted to establish its bona fide nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings. Thus, in the light of view taken in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the levy of penalty.
Bhagwan Dass Bansal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
Smart Projects (P) Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – Assessee company has duly submitted all requisite documentary evidences before the Authorities below so as to discharge its onus of establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transactions. That being so, looked at from any angle, the addition has wrongly been made in the hands of the assessee company, though the same ought to have been made, if at all, in the hands of the shareholders, as held in ‘Lovely Exports’.
Sunita Gupta Share Brokers Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- In ‘Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd..’ (supra), it has been held, inter alia, that any profit which arises on the forfeiture of shares is neither a revenue receipt, nor profit on the working of the company, but is simply the circulating capital of the company, and as such, a capital asset. Taking note of this, in ‘Asiatic Oxygen Ltd.'(supra), it was observed that Schedule VI – Part I of the Companies Act contains the form in which the balance sheet is to be prepared by the company and it indicate that all capital reserves of the company should be disclosed under the head ”Reserves and Supply” in the liability side of the balance sheet; that the assessee had credited the amount in respect of the forfeited shares under the head ‘capital reserve’; that thus, the Companies Act itself treats the profit on forfeiture of shares as capital reserve not available for distribution as evidence; that it could not therefore be held that the profit arising to the company on forfeiture of shares is a trading or business profit assessable in the hands of the company;
M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011.
