If Act authorizes a designated authority to collect tax for State, the same Act always permits the said authority to rectify any proceedings, which has resulted in double taxation. When the income of Rs. 4,28,750 has been assessed for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessment of the same amount for the impugned assessment year 2007-08 is a mistake apparent from the records. The assessing authority could have corrected it and if not, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have given a direction to rectify such a mistake apparent from the records. There is no great question of law involved in this.
Doshion Ltd. Vs. ITo (Ahmedabad HC)- Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it clearly emerges that the assessment previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has not suggested that such income escaped assessment for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In fact the sole ground on which such scrutiny assessment is sought to be reopened beyond 4 years is that by virtue of Explanation to Section 80IA added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000, income derived from the works contract would not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
Taurian Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ad. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of Haji Aziz And Abdul Shakoor Brothers (supra) it was held that fine paid to the Custom Authorities was in fact penalty u/s 167 (8C) of the Customs Act. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such penalties which are incurred by an assessee in proceedings launched against him for an infraction of the law cannot be called commercial losses incurred by an assessee in carrying on his business. In the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Industries (supra) the Deputy Collector of Customs had ordered confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order.
Kanchenjunga Advertising P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi HC)- It is a well settled position that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are different in nature and that the findings given in the assessment proceedings, though may constitute good evidence, cannot constitute conclusive evidence for the purposes of levying penalty. (please see CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons ( 1970) 83 ITR 369, and Anantharam Veerasinghaiam & Co. Vs. CIT (1980)123 ITR 457).
In a 2.5 billion dollar sigh of relief for Vodafone, and for other companies eyeing assets in India, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone. The court has said that the Indian tax department cannot tax the transaction that saw Vodafone acquire 67 per cent stake in Hutchison Essar, a mobile phone operator in India in 2007. The deal was for 55,000 crores or $11.5 billion.
Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The facts are that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 7,80,500/-, being the fees paid to Registrar of Companies for raising authorized capital. It is the admitted position of law that the expenditure is not revenue in nature and, therefore, it is not deductible in computing the total income. It is also the admitted fact that two decisions of the Supreme Court, adverse to the assessee, held field when the return was filed.
ITO, TDS-II Vs The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT) – The short controversy is that the assessee did not quote PAN number in TDS ereturn while uploading the e-returns. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause. What we find that as admittedly the new system of filing e-TDS-returns is introduced. Being a new system, having a some problems with software and for that the assesse bank can not be held responsible. No where is denied by the A.O. that as claimed by the Assesse, there system error. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause for not quoting PAN numbers in e-return of TDS. We further find that the assessee thereafter immediately filed the revised TDS ereturn and also have furnished Form no.60. n our opinion, there is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not quoting the PAN numbers in e-TDS return and no penalty is leviable. Accordingly, all the grounds in the revenue’s appeal are dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assesse is allowed and we delete the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT (A).
Denel (Proprietary Limited) Vs. GOI, Ministry of Defence (SC) – Exercising its powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reiterated that right to appointment of an Arbitrator does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days as prescribed under Section 11(4) & 11(5) of the Act unless petition is filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act prior to appointment by opposite party. The SC appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator due to apprehensions of bias and impartiality, contrary to the clauses of the contract necessitating appointment of DGOF or government servant, as the Sole Arbitrator.
RPFC Vs. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.(SC) – .The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’ ) is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an ‘exempted establishment’ cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) – In the assessment order the A.O. did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 the department had gone in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in this matter. Thus the A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.l,35,87,876/- as excess depreciation claimed. On appeal ld. CIT(A ) after taking into consideration of the various documents filed by assessee before him and following the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata from 2001-02 to 2005-06 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,35,87,876/- made by AO. It is further observed that the filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2001-02 to 2005-06 will not have any effect since the Hon’ble High Court has neither set aside the orders of the Tribunal nor granted any stay. Respectfully following the same we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
