CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.
Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
CIT Vs Dinesh Megji Toprani (HUF) (Bombay High Court)- The assessee HUF had sold certain immovable properties and out of the sale proceeds received, purchased immovable properties and claimed benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the property was purchased in the name of the individuals namely Dr.Dinesh Megji Toprani and Mrs.Jyoti Dinesh Toprani and not in the name of the HUF and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ACIT Vs. Sumit P. Bhattacharya (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee was an employee of M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd., which is a group company of Procter and Gamble of USA. The company had given appreciation rights to the assessee. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmender Textiles, 306 ITR 307, we find that CIT(A) as well as ITAT have not cancelled penalty on the ground of mens rea, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. Contrary to that, the case under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. Cited supra. In the light of above discussion, we hereby cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
CIT (DR)- XII, ITAT Vs. Simoni Gems (ITAT Mumbai) -In appeal assessee raised preliminary objection that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed period of 12 months and AO accepted that the notice under 143(2) notice was not been issued in time. Accordingly, the Tribunal, relying on Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), dismissed the department’s appeal without going into the merits of the appeal.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether ITAT was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 21,35,766/- from a Company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD. Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?
Uniflex Cables Ltd. versus C.C.E. (Supreme Court)- With regard to the imposition of penalty in the present case is concerned, the Commissioner, himself in his order-inoriginal has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature. Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty. Honorable Supreme Court held that as Commissioner himself found that it is only a case of interpretational nature, in our considered opinion, no penalty could be and is liable to be imposed on the appellant herein.
Bhura Exports Ltd Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court, Decided on August 30, 2011)- When the limitation provided earlier in Section 231 of the Act for taking action u/s 201 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1989 and was re-introduced by way of addition of sub-Section (3) of Section 201 with effect from April 1, 2010, there is no bar of the period of limitation for taking action under Section 201 of the Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya Pradesh High Court)- In the present case, Sukhnandan Jain was on business tour and was staying at Govt. Rest House, Sagar from where he was kidnapped.
CIT Vs V. R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- The observation made in paragraph 58 at page 414 of the aforementioned judgement, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for revenue seeks only to emphasise that the assessee in that case, had only acquired access to technology which was not related to any secret process or patent rights and thus in continuum it is mentioned that not even a right to use the trademark or brand name had inhered in the assessee.
