Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Subhash Chander vs. CIT that it is open for the AO to complete assessment either u/s 144 or u/s 143(3), in case compliance of notice has not been done by the assessee.
The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income making assessee liable to face penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
ITAT Pune held in the case The ACIT vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors that It is clear that the bill raised by the assessee has been accepted by the department and for whatever reason some amount was not paid during F.Y. 2001-02 but the fact remains that there is no such dispute as claimed by the assessee.
Due to the absence of any profit element in the amount paid by the agents it was held that it was purely in the nature of reimbursement of cost of MaerskNet. Further, MaerskNet was part of the shipping business and therefore subject to DTAA.
The transaction of allowing credit period to the AE on realization of sale proceeds is not an independent transaction and has to be considered along with the main international transaction of sale of goods.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Bikramjit Singh Gill vs. CIT that no possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of Joint development Agreement (JDA) dated 25.2.2007.
In case of CIT vs. M/s Kudu Industries, P&H High Court held that In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corp held that There is no obligation to deduct TDS on amounts paid as reimbursement of expenses because it do not have the character of income.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Custom in Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2005 decided on 29.07.15 has held that assessment proceeding under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be continued against the legal representative/estate of a sole proprietor/manufacturer after he is dead.
In the case of of Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hues India Pvt. Ltd., High court of Rajasthan bench at Jaipur held that that quantum and penalty proceedings under the Act stand on a different footing and relying on decision in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 2002 (256) ITR 243 and Malani Ramjivan
