Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details,
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) -Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) – Where the Assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of a different exchaneg rate which exercise resulted into a loss on conversion of foreign currency to the assessee and the AO held the loss to be a notional loss
CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) – As s. 35-G of the Central Excise Act (and s. 130 of the Customs Act) provides that an appeal to the High Court shall be filed within 180 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and there is no provision for condonation of delay the court has no power to condone delay.
CIT vs. Dodsal Ltd (Bombay High Court) – It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatory imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.
In Goetze v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT – (1) Even in the case of an assessee not maintaining books of account and to whom s. 68 does not apply, addition in respect of unexplained entries in the bank book can be made; (2) Where the assessee was not provided copies of the seized documents and the delay in filing the block return was on that count, interest u/s 158BFA (1) is not leviable even though there is no exemption on that count in the statute.;
Jashan Textile Mills vs. DCIT – In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal (Supreme Court) – (i) A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a joint venture in the legal sense. It is a contract for services.
U/s 245A(b), as amended by the Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, pendency of proceedings for assessment before the AO for one or more assessment years is a necessary condition for invoking the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. Held in that context by Five Member Bench of the ITSC that: (a) For the year for which returns have been filed but have neither been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act nor notices have been issue u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the proceeding for assessment can be said to be pending
