Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In our considered opinion, the stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 158 also supports the case of the assessee because in that case, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Honourable Apex Court supports the case of the assessee in the present case and respectfully following this judgement, we delete the penalty.
M/s Sundaram Fasteners Ltd Vs CIT (Madras High Court)- As far as placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) reported in [2003] 262 ITR 278 is concerned, we do not find, the said decision, in any manner, goes against the case of the assessee. The Unit at Krishnapuram is stated to be the only unit having hot forging machine. It is stated that the assessee, based at Krishnapuram, received bolts and nuts from Padi, manufactured using cold forging. The Krishnapuram unit completes hot forging and after the process comes to Padi where there is further value addition and after assembling nuts and bolts, they are marketed.
CIT, Chennai Vs A R Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)- The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee based on the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, that the windmill was commissioned on 30.09.1995.
CIT, Mumbai Vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.- (Bombay High Court)- The object of inserting Section 10(23AAB) as per the Board Circular No. 762 dated 18th February 1998 was to enable the assessee to offer attractive terms to the contributors.
CIT Vs M/s Lakshmi Hospital (High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulum)- In this case also assessee conceded that the unaccounted receipts were collected for payment to doctors attending to patients in the hospital. What we notice is that the department has not made any effort to confront the doctors with the unaccounted payments stated to have been made to them by the hospital which engaged them.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)- When the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings and the information received is extremely scanty and vague, and the material based on which the proceedings are initiated does not indicate escapement of income, the AO will have no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Gurukripa Resins Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)- Central Excise- manufacture- Rosin and Turpentine- process of lifting water is incidental to manufacture; the operation of lifting of the water from the well to the higher levels, is so integrally connected with the manufacture of “Turpentine Oil” and “Rosin”, that without this activity it is impossible to manufacture the said goods and therefore, the processing of the said raw material in or in relation to manufacture of the said final goods is carried on with the aid of power.
DCIT Vs Summit Securities Limited (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)- Notwithstanding the fact that the substantial question of law raised in the order of the earlier Bench has been admitted by the Honourable High Court, there are no fetters on the Tribunal in hearing the case in Special Bench and rendering the decision which would prevail upon and become a binding precedent for the other Benches of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee could not point out even a single judgment in which the Honourable High Court abstained the Tribunal from deciding the issue through Special bench during the pendency of appeal before it. With utmost humility there cannot be such a decision for the manifest reason that the justice delivery system has to take its own course and cannot wait in eternity for a higher judicial body to decide the issue first.
EIH Limited Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- The sale of food and beverages to the international airlines in sealed containers constitutes an export of goods out of India and the payment received from the said foreign airlines in India, in the form of rupees, could be treated as payment in convertible foreign exchange within the meaning of the provisions of s 80HHC.
