CIT Vs M/s Lakshmi Hospital (High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulum)- In this case also assessee conceded that the unaccounted receipts were collected for payment to doctors attending to patients in the hospital. What we notice is that the department has not made any effort to confront the doctors with the unaccounted payments stated to have been made to them by the hospital which engaged them.
Added In Income Tax Case Laws CIT v Heera Construction Co Pvt Ltd (High Court of Kerala) – In view of the application of the 2nd proviso, the assessee is not entitled to complete immunity from payment of penalty on the undisclosed income returned by them under clause (a) of section 158BC, not only because of their failure to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) to (iv) of the 1st proviso but by virtue of the addition made in the assessment of substantial amount of undisclosed income by which the assessee forfeits the benefit of the 1st proviso in regard to immunity from penalty on the tax payable on undisclosed income returned.
Kerala High Court has vide its order dated 16.06.2011 granted interim stay against any coercive steps of recovery of service tax or against any proceedings for imposing penalty for a period of two months on Restaurant and short term accommodation service.
CIT Vs A Y Broadcast Foundation (Kerala High Court) – Generally, the activities refereed to therein i.e. production of television and radio programmes and telecasting and broadcasting of the same are commercial activities. Further the object clause provided for the assessee to act as an agent, broker, liasioner, introducer etc., which are purely commercial activities intended to make profit. Since the assessee is not holding any business in charity or distributing any surplus for charitable purposes, the question to be considered is whether the carrying on of the activities referred to in the object clause by itself constitute advancement of any object of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act.
M/s IVL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) – – Assessee while working out the eligible deduction did not exclude 90% of the income received by way of consultancy charges which is to be specifically excluded by virtue of mandatory provision contained in Explanation (d) of Section 80HHE of the Act. In fact, since there is an omission to apply the statutory provision in the working out of eligible deduction of profit on export of software, the assessment could even be rectified through rectification proceedings under Section 154. In any case when the mandatory provision is not followed leading to evasion of tax by way of excess relief granted to the assessee, the remedy open to the officer is to revise the assessment by invoking powers under Section 147.
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)
