CIT Versus Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad) – The tribunal however, was of the opinion that the assessee company had undertaken activities in earlier year in accordance with its main objects contained in memorandum of Articles of Association of the company.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
TRO v Industrial Finance Corpn. of India and Ors. (Gujrat HC)- The charges created against the property, by the mortgaging of the property by the assessee-borrower in favour of the financial institution during the pendency of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be declared as void against any claim in respect of income tax if the same was made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceedings, or without notice of tax or other sum payable by the assessee.
CIT v Kokilaben A Shah (Gujrat HC) – Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.
CIT v Volpak Securities Ltd. (Gujrat High Court)- With respect to the portion of penalty, which the CIT [A] confirmed, the same was deleted by the Tribunal observing that the assessee was liable to make payment of Rs. 1,53,000/ on 23rd June 1997 in respect of mark-to-market settlement for which purpose Rs. 1,50,000/ was accepted from Shri Ashok Patel, Director in cash. However, since some funds were available in the books on that date, only Rs. 75,000/ was deposited in the Bank on 23rd June 1997 and the balance, after meeting certain other payments, was returned to the Director.
CIT v Gujarat Safai Kamdar Vikas Nigam (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) – It was a scheme envisaged for implementation of certain Government programmes in particular, to uplift the living condition of manual scavengers and other Safai Kamdars involved in similar activities. Though exact words may not have been used that the funds made available are directed to form the corpus of the Corporation and to be used for such purpose, the entire purport of the scheme has to be gathered from the reading of the scheme as a whole. If so done, it leaves no doubt in our mind that the funds were made available to the Corporation for implementing the scheme in a particular manner. The assessee Corporation was not th sole trustee. The Scheduled Caste Development Board was also liable for implementation of the scheme to be supervised by a Committee headed by the Deputy Minister which included other Government officials. To our mind, the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the grant in question fulfills the requirement of section 11(d)(1) read with section 12(1) of the Act. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
Shayama Sanjay Shah v CIT (Gujrat High Court) – Though it is true that powers under section 273A of the Act are discretionary powers, it is equally true that powers conferred under a statute are required to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the said statute. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the Commissioner instead of recording satisfaction or otherwise in respect of the grounds prescribed under section 273A of the Act, has rejected the petition on irrelevant grounds, firstly, on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for failure in filing the return of income belatedly, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner had already paid the tax payable in consequence of the order of penalty, which ground in view of the provisions of section 273A of the Act should have, in fact, weighed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Commissioner has not exercised discretion as required under section 273A of the Act and as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to the relevant factors and as such cannot be sustained.
Aayojan Developers vs ITO (Ahemdabad High Court) -Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a developer in the returns filed by him, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. At best, the petitioner has made a claim along with supporting documents, namely, development agreements for construction of housing projects, etc. and based upon the said documents, the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion and granted deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. As to whether in a given set of facts, the assessee is a developer or a works contractor is a matter of inference. Hence, the assertion that the petitioner is a developer, without anything more cannot be said to be an incorrect disclosure of facts, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is illegal and invalid. The proceedings under section 147 of the Act which have been initiated by issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Provision under which the penalty was levied by the original adjudicating officer permits benefit of reduction in the penalty; subject to party paying the entire amount of tax determined interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the communication of the order. As provision appears to be pari materia to Section 11AC and the order of Gujarat High Court in the case of Akash Fashion Prints (P) Ltd. followed by the Tribunal, in case of provision of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, there is no infirmity in view adopted by the Tribunal. Revenue Appeal dismissed.
Penalty under s 271FA – Failure to file annual information return — The penalty under s 271FA is leviable if the assessee fails to respond to the notice for failure of filing annual information return — as held by Gujrat High Court in Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd v DIT(CIB); Special Civil Application No. 14675 of 2010, 22 April 2011
