DCIT Vs. M/s. Bellad & Co. (ITAT Bangalore) – The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in automobiles and Sony products and also into generation of electricity from windmills. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring income of Rs.11,52,410/- after setting off of depreciation loss pertaining to windmill installed during the financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal. The AO, in the assessment completed, disallowed loss of Rs. 1,22,30,626/-.
Kotak Securities Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When we look at the connotations of expression ‘commission or brokerage’ in its cognate sense, as in the light of the principle of noscitur a sociis as we are obliged to, in our considered view, scope of expression ‘commission’, for this purpose, will be confined to ‘an allowance, recompense or reward made to agents, factors and brokers and others for effecting sales and carrying out business transactions’ and shall not extend to the payments, such as ‘bank guarantee commission’, which are in the nature of fees for services rendered or product offered by the recipient of such payments on principal to principal basis.
ACIT vs. DICGC Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) – Sec.201 deals with the mode of recovery of taxes and once tax due has already been paid then the same demand cannot be enforced again. However, sec.40[a][ia] deals with the disallowance of expenditure itself. Therefore, merely by invoking the Heydon’s principle the statutory provisions cannot be rendered redundant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once tax has not been deducted and even if such tax has been paid by the deductee, disallowance u/s.40[a][ia] can still be made.
Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision in Al-Kabeer Exports Ltd Vs. CIT, reversing the High Court’s ruling and affirming the Tribunal’s special bench decision.
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi ( Delhi HC)- that interest at the rate of 6% per annum under Rule 8 could have been awarded to the respondent on the seized Indian currency only. The learned Single Judge has however applying the said Rule also awarded interest on the seized foreign currency and which cannot be sustained. The Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra) has held that a writ remedy cannot be availed to circumvent the non grant of interest by the authority, Commissioner, Central Excise in that case. It was also observed that in any event a writ petition for award of interest simplicitor was not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal or by way of a suit. . Else the position is squarely covered by Suganmal and M/s Orient Enterprise (supra) and this writ petition in the nature of enforcement of a civil liability that is claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable. It is not as if payment of interest under Rule 8 (ii) was mandatory (as under Rule 8(i)) and which could be enforced by way of a writ petition. The impugned judgment awarding interest under Rule 8(i) qua Indian currency also can thus not be sustained.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda (Delhi HC) -Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax.
ITO (TDS) Panchkula Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) it is apparent from the record that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised the PAN and filed revised statement in Form No. 26Q, hence there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 139A of the Act. Even otherwise the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever, by filing the wrong PANs and PAN was corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. In our view the assessee has proved that there was reasonable cause for alleged failure and hence no penalty is leviable
In the present case, there is no indication of the assessee’s hire purchase agreements reflecting bifurcation of the EMIs into principal and interest components. In the absence thereof, the common and accepted usage of the indexing system of accounting in the hire-purchase trade must be held to be valid as otherwise the rate of interest under the mercantile system in so far as the later EMIs are concerned would be far higher and contrary to the rate prescribed in the assessee’s agreements. Further, as the assessee had itself employed this system of accounting in its books of account, applying the law laid down in Sanjeev Woollen Mills (supra), the Department was bound to accept the same for the assessment proceedings.
CIT VS. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (Delhi HC) – In the case of the uncashed cheques amount to Rs.1,97,758/-, the finding of the Tribunal is that that there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute, as it cannot be, that the amount of uncashed cheques was not allowed as deduction in any of the earlier assessment years. As per the assessee this represents the cheques received and remaining on hand on the last day of the accounting period. Tribunal has accepted this stand. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not stated why the stand of the assessee was not acceptable. Revenue has also not stated and averred that the assessment order now passed, this aspect was not considered and examined. In these circumstances, Section 41(1) can hardly have any application. We accordingly, uphold the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition.
