Shree Bhagawathy Textiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT – If the assessee has made a claim of deduction from this profit not enumerated in the clauses (i) to (ix) covered by Explanation to section 115JA, the assessment so completed based on the profit taken from the profit and loss account appropriation account submitted by the assesseee happens to be an apparent mistake which could having satisfied on the factual mistake committed by the assessing officer in the original assesment, rightly upheld the revised assessment issued under section 154 by reversing their earlier order.
CIT vs. M/s India Sea Foods (Kerala High Court) If an assessment happens to be an under-assessment or a mistaken order, the course open to the AO is either to rectify the mistake u/s 154 or to make a reassessment u/s 147. While, it is correct, as held in EID Parry 216 ITR 489 (Mad), that the AO has to choose between the two and cannot initiate both proceedings at the same time, the principle of constructive res judicata made applicable by the Madras High Court that the AO having initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 should stick to the same only and cannot drop that and proceed u/s 147 is not acceptable. The fact that the AO invoked s. 154 and dropped it does not affect the validity of re-assessment u/s 147.
In these appeals filed by the revenue, the only question raised is whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit under Section 11 5JB of the Income Tax Act. Even though in respect of one assessee, the provision involved is Section 11 5JA, there is no need to consider the issue separately because applicability of Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit is one and the same both under Section 11 5JA and 11 5JB of the Act. CIT vs. Packworth Udyog (Kerala High Court – Full Bench)
Scope of Explanation 2 to Section 147 is such that Assessing Officer is free to re-examine correctness of a regular assessment and decide whether tax assessed, rate applied, relief and allowances granted, etc., are in terms of provisions of Act and if not, to revise assessment in terms of Section 147. Section 147, after amendment, is large enough to cover situations whereby deductions have been wrongly or excessively granted, the Tribunal has no authority to restrict the powers of the Assessing Officer by holding that change of opinion is not a ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147.
If the financiers have only financed or purchased the vehicle and the borrowers are the registered owners, then the financiers are not entitled to claim any depreciation because they are neither the owners of the vehicle nor have they used the vehicle in their profession or business entitling them for depreciation under section 32(1)
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN THE CASE OF: ACIT Vs. Hukum Chand Jain, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 18 and 20 to 22 of 2006, DECIDED ON August 10, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by […]
We would think that the moment the assessee pours the chemicals into the effluent, he will cease to be the owner and at that point of time the awarder must be deemed to have taken delivery of the same. In our view the fact that upon it being poured into the effluent, it loses its identity and that it is consumed will not detract from the fact that there is delivery of the same to the awarder. The assessee does not have a case that the effluent belongs to the assessee.
So far as the disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, we feel considering the fact that there is no precise formula for proportionate disallowance, no disallowance is called for, for proportionate administrative cost attributable to earning of tax free income until Rule 8D came into force. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority on this issue and remand all the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for reworking disallowance under Section 14A in the case of each assessee for each assessment year. The proportionate disallowance under Section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D from 2007-2008 onwards.
Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by Division Bench judgment of this court in SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in 262 ITR 579, the department while arguing these appeals before a Division Bench of this court canvassed against the correctness of the said judgment and the Division Bench on being prima facie satisfied, referred the matter for decision by Full Bench and hence the matter is before us.
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices
