De Beers India Prospecting Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) – it was held that prospecting and examining are important activities to undertake mining. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the taxpayer had commenced its business from the time it started the prospecting activity and therefore, non-prospecting related expenditure is deductible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) even though it was incurred prior to commencement of mining.
DCIT Vs. J.K. Investo Trade (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Issue before the Tribunal was that Whether non-compete fees payable pursuant to a joint venture agreement for transfer of manufacturing division, through a Scheme of arrangement, which is sanctioned by the High Court is taxable in the year of Appointed Date or Year of sanction of the Scheme or on receipt?
CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) – The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal thereby quashing the assessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that it was merely an irregularity committed by the AO and was rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.
Twinstar Jupiter Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – In the case of Sindh CHS Ltd (supra) the Honble High Court made it clear that in the said case the bye-laws provide that the amount has to be paid by the transferor Member. In the present case, nowhere it is the case of the A.O. that there is a provision that only the transferor has to bear the amount of the transfer fees. We, further, find that nowhere it is the case of the A.O. that no commerciality is involved in the objects or activities of the assessee society as the assessee has credited the amount to the general reserve funds to be used for the repairs and maintenance of the society. Their Lordships have also considered the Notification given by the Government of Maharashtra and the reference made is to only to extent of argument of the parties to the on Govt notification dated 9.8.2001. As per the notification dated 10.12.1989 if the bye-laws are amended then only the society could not charge what was set out in the notification.
Chadha Finlease Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted.
ITO Vs. Nasir Khan J. Mahadik (ITAT Mumbai)-Mumbai ITAT has in the following case deleted the additions made on account of opening balances of unsecured loans and the notional interest on such loans. The Tribunal held that only fresh loans or additions to the loans during the year in question can be considered for the purpose of addition. Previous years loans cannot be added to subsequent year’s income by claiming them to be unexplained.
Present case appears to be one where prima facie the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA are taken undue advantage of. Therefore, at least in those cases where the reference was rejected in previous years on merits by the BIFR, guidelines can be issued to ensure that fresh references in subsequent years should not be mechanically entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent may be right in contending that while registering the references, the Registrar cannot act as quasi judicial authority which is the function of the Board.
ADIT (E) Vs International Goudiya Vedanta Trust (ITAT Delhi)- The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has held that the income of the assessee, being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust and as such, it could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing the income for purposes of Section 11 of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow depreciation and reduce the same from the income of the trust for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is thus upheld.
First issue involved in the appeal is whether the Cenvat credit available on raw materials and services used for non-excisable goods is admissible to the appellants. Under the Cenvat Credit Rules, input means all goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and Cenvat credit can be availed on the duty paid on any input received in the factory of manufacture of the final product.
P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) – Assessing Officer is vested with a discretionary power to levy or not to levy any penalty in a deserving case. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (SC), held that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The Assessing Officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. If an assessee files the revised return though at a later stage or disclosed true income, penalty need not be levied. No doubt, merely offering additional income will not automatically protect the assessee from levy of penalty but in a given case where the assessee’s case, came forward with additional income though after deduction on account of that the assessee was not in a position to explain properly,
