Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Ranka & Ranka [2012] 206 Taxman 322 wherein the Division Bench has considered Instruction No.3 and the National Litigation, Policy, had held as under: (i) Instruction No.3/11 is also applicable to the pending appeals. (ii) As the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs.10 lakhs, the appeal stands dismissed on the ground of monetary limit, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, making it clear that the Department is at liberty to proceed against the assessee in future, if there any amount due from the assessee, on similar issue and if it is above the monetary limit prescribed.
Before a pharmaceutical drug could be put in the market, the regulatory authorities would insist on strict tests and research on all possible aspects, such as possible reactions, effect of the drug and so on. Extensive clinical trials, therefore, would be an intrinsic part of development of any such new pharmaceutical drug. It cannot be imagined that such clinical trial can be carried out only in the laboratory of the pharmaceutical company.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer having examined the entire claim threadbare, any deviation from his decision on the ground that the receipts of the assessee from sale of land should be treated as business income in and not as long term capital gain must be taken to be a change of opinion. It may be that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not elaborate on this aspect of the matter. To our mind the same would be of no consequence.
When the Settlement Commission examines an application in terms of statutory powers and finds that such application does not satisfy the legal requirements, as contained in section 245C(1) of the Act, in our view, unless such decision of the Commission is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be warranted.
The case of the petitioners is that the impugned explanation below sub-section (13) to section 80IA provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown. It is, therefore, urged that the Court should examine the reasonableness of such provision particularly when the same is brought into operation with retrospective effect. Section 80IA(4) provides for deduction under certain circumstances. If such deductions are withdrawn with retrospective effect, surely there would be a case of providing for a levy which was till then not known.
In short, the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs.50 lacs was justified. We do not find any question of law arising. The entire issue rests solely on appreciation of evidence on record. Particularly when the assessee having made such a statement and repeated the same two months later and in the letter retracting the statement never offered any explanation as to the reason why he made a confessional statement two months after the search, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal.
The petitioners required vacant possession of the land to be able to pass on the title and vacant possession. To be able to do so, the petitioners entered into agreements with the tenants. Such documents thus are documents which definitely belong to the petitioners. Simply because on subsequent date, the land was sold, may have a bearing on the title of such land, the same would not in any manner alter the nature of the document concerned.
In the present case, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs under section 140A of the Act. In addition thereto, the assessee had also suffered tax deduction at source to the tune of Rs. 25,533/-. Eventually, the Assessing Officer, assessed the tax liability of the assessee at total of Rs. 15,08,474/-. Thus the assessee had short-paid tax to the tune of Rs. 4,82,941/-. To our mind, however, when we look at the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (supra), such distinction would not be material. What was held by the Delhi High Court was that charging of interest from an assessee for late filing of return though the tax was already paid, would render the provision penal in nature, which the statute did not provide. If we apply the same ratio in the present case, the only modification we need to adopt is that the assessee must be held to be liable to pay interest under section 234A of the Act on the difference of amount between the tax assessed and the amount which he had paid before the due date to which even the assessee has not raised any serious objection.
In the absence of any material, and as the Court does not find any legal or valid ground to withhold sanction to the proposed Scheme, the same is hereby sanctioned. The prayers made in terms of Paragraph 22(a) of Company Petition No.142 of 2012 and in terms of Paragraph 15(a) of Company Petitions No.143 and 144 of 2012, are hereby granted.
In case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62, the Supreme Court in the context of an assessee making provision for estimated expenditure towards warranty observed that provision is a liability which can be measured only by using substantial degree of estimation. Such provision is recognized when an assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events, and it is possible that any outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and further a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.
