Bee Pee Jay Finance Ltd. Vs CIT and Anr (Calcutta High Court)- By virtue of Section 11 5JA a legal fiction has been created by which if total income is found to be less than 30% of the book profit, the total income should be deemed to be 30% of the profit and in such a case, if charge ability of interest under Sections 234B and 234C are held applicable only in view of sub-Section (4) of Section 11 5JA, it would amount to adding another legal fiction to an existing legal fiction of Section 11 5JA( 1). According to Mr. Sen in case of a legal fiction, which has to be interpreted for giving its full logical coverage, another legal fiction cannot be added to the same and for the aforesaid proposition.
Jai Mica Supply Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that there were conflicting views on this point when the notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued.
Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We are of the opinion that the term ‘loss’ as occurring in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) of the Companies Act has to be understood and read as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. Then alone the formula prescribed in this clause would make sense and it would be consistent with the object sought to be achieved by enacting Section 115-J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If loss were to be taken as pre-depreciation loss then the resultant computation will not be in conformity with the tenor of the provisions of Section 205. The language of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) is clear.
CCE Versus RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court – There was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside.
C.C.E., Mangalore Vs M/s. Pals Micro systems Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The department could not establish that there was any suppression of facts or a fraud on the part of the respondent- assessee. We find that the honest mistake committed in maintenance of stock register etc. was frankly admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent-assessee. There is no finding to the effect that there was a fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Thus, it is very clear that the notice was issued after expiry of the period of limitation.
CCE Vs M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation.
Royal En field (Unit of M/s. Eicher Ltd.) Vs CCE (Supreme Court of India)- In the decision of Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. reported at 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that where the goods are delivered in a packed condition at the time of removal the cost of such packing shall be included.
In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT in the order impugned have considered the material on record and if there is some evidence on the basis of which the primary and appellate authorities have based their conclusions, then the fact that better evidence ought to have been marshalled by the assessee and absence of the substantive evidence of invoices, was not considered, would not constitute a substantial question of law warranting consideration by this Court under Section 35G of the Act, in an appeal.
CIT Vs M/s SRF Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Whether while computing the dis-allowance u/s 37(3), each trip of the employee will be considered separately and no set off will be allowed for the amount of deficit in the next trip by the same employee in the same year – Whether while computing book profits u/s 115J, the difference in the amount of depreciation on the revalued amount or the original cost is to be added back and the amount of revaluation reserve should be either credited in the profit and loss account or should be excluded from the depreciation claimed.- Revenue’s appeal allowed.
M/s M Narayanan & Bros Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)- In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P.R. Metrani Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation.
