ACIT Vs. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in A.R.J. Security Printers’ case [2003] 264 ITR 276 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi ), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts.
Investment within 6 months is the investment for that financial year in which transfer has taken place. Hence, subsequent investment is to be considered as part of the investment of financial year in which transfer has taken place. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing deduction to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1.00 crore u/s 54EC of the Act. We therefore, uphold the order of the AO.
The charge has to be registered by filing Form 8 with the concerned RoC in terms of section 125 within a period of 30 days after the creation of the charge. The RoC may allow another 30 days time on payment of additional fee and therefore, total 60 days time is available to file the necessary forms with the RoC for creating the charge over the properties. The Act states that company has to file the necessary forms with the concerned RoC, for registration of charges. It is obvious that the lender need to take action to get it registered with RoC to safeguard their interest.
Though vide Instruction no. 1/2006 dated 24-03-2006, it was clarified that trading units can be set up in the SEZ. However, the modification was made on 24-05-2006 in which it was made clear that the deduction u/s 10AA will be available in respect of the trading in the nature of re-export of imported good. Thus the assessees were promised that they will be eligible for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of the profit earning on trading of re-export of imported goods. The revenue has not been able to show us that such instruction was not withdrawn or the Board has issued instruction that instructin dated 24-05-206 from the Ministry of Commerce will not be applicable for the purpose of allowing exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. Hence, in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction.
Para 2 of the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 24.3.2008 deal with the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. Assessee had clearly admitted before Settlement Commission that the claim of purchase from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors were all bogus. Additional income of Rs. 9,05,87,044/- relating to assessment years 1999-2000 to 2003-04 was also offered by the assessee before Settlement Commission. Assessee having admitted that the whole of the purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors was bogus, no reliance could be placed on its claim that there was an advance of Rs. 1,00,92,400/- given by it to M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. No doubt, assessee had offered Rs. 5,95,43,410/- for assessment year 2004-05 as bogus purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors before Settlement Commission.
Yograj Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. & ANR. (SC) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Yograj Infras Ltd against the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh high court in its dispute with Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Co. The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) awarded a Rs 750 crore contract for a road project to Ssang. It also entered into an agreement with Yograj for supply of adequate manpower, material, machinery and all other resources, including finance. In case of disputes, arbitration was to be conducted in English in Singapore in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules. Disputes did arise, the contract was terminated and Yograj alleged fraud by Ssong. However, the high court quashed the criminal complaint. Yograj moved the Supreme Court seeking injunction against invoking bank guarantee, but its appeal was dismissed in view of the facts of the case.
Rujuta N. Shah V/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that no proper and due opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) inasmuch as, the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the paper book filed by the assessee, while deciding the appeal ex-parte, therefore, in the interest of justice the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be set aside to his file to decide the same afresh which was not objected to by the ld. DR.
Shri Dev Ashok Karvat Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In Mr. Chetan R.Parikh V/s ITO in ITA No. 1569/Mum/2010 (AY: 2006- 07) dated 25.05.2011, it has been held by the Tribunal that the units of mutual funds are not generally a trading instrument because of comparatively low fluctuation and number of transactions in units are also not large.
CIT Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC)- In the instant case, it was held that since the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.
Echjay Forgings Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 286 (Bombay High Court)- Can expenditure incurred by a company on higher studies of the director’s son abroad be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 on the contention that he was appointed as a trainee in the company under “apprentice training scheme”, where there was no proof of existence of such scheme?
