Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- An inadequate enquiry on the part of the AO would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under s 263 merely because he has a different opinion on the matter. Issues, in respect of which the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), could not have been taken up by the Commissioner while exercising his powers under s 263(1).
Beejay Security & Finance Ltd v ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Satisfaction is required to be arrived at by the AO of the person who was searched under s 132 of the Act regarding any undisclosed income of the person who was not subjected to a search to hand over the seized material to the AO of the person to whom the seized documents belongs or is alleged to belong. The satisfaction required for proceedings under s 153C cannot be reduced to a mere formality of forwarding the documents found in the course of the search, which did not belong to the person searched, and which belonged to the person against whom proceedings under s 153C were sought to be initiated.
ACIT, New Delhi Vs Indian Farmer Fertilisers Co- op Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- From the tax audit report, we also find that amount of Rs. 13,03,74,047/- has been shown as paid on or before due date for furnishing return of income for the previous year u/s 139(1) of the Act. Form 3CD has been prepared and signed by Rajnish & Associates, CA.
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd Vs DCIT (Supreme Court) – Failure on the part of the AO to apply section 14A of the Act when he passed the original assessment order had prima facie resulted in escapement of income. The object and purpose of the proviso to section 14A of the Act is to bar reassessment/ rectification of past cases which have attained finality and not an original assessment on the basis of retrospective amendment in the statute book.
An appeal is a substantive right. The assessee should have a full opportunity to put forth his case and should be able to get relief, if any, in accordance with. It is difficult to sustain the assessee’s negligence. However, the assessee cannot also be let scot free. Now, he has preferred this appeal and the learned advocate for the Department has to appear and contest the matter. Hence, we deem it proper to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
Prism Jewellery Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The question of unexplained investment outside the books of account does not arise when the books itself has accounts purchases and payment through cheques. Assessee record itself indicates the purchases at that quantity and the same values were carried to the P & L Account as per the grouping shown above.
CIT Vs The Maratha Mandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Interest income in the present case arose on account of giving advance rent to the landlord from whom premises were taken on rent for the purpose of carrying on banking business.
Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bombay Real Estate Development Company Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) to the assessee as allowable to a developer and builder for the Poisar Housing Project at Kandivali (E).
Destination of the World (Subcontinent) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The Tribunal held that in the first instance, the attempt should be made to determine arm’s length price of controlled transactions by comparing the same with internal uncontrolled transactions undertaken in same or similar economic scenario. The Tribunal relied on the following in arriving at this conclusion.
Bourbon Offshore Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs DIT (AAR No. 937 of 2010) dated 12 July 2011- The taxpayer is engaged in the business of providing offshore oil and gas marine sub sea services. It also offers range of offshore oil service vessels to global oil and gas industry.
