Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 16/6/2011 delivered by Hon’ble High Court,Madras in the W.P.No. 21520,21782 and 21783/2010 filed in the matter of BSNL Vs. Union of India & others. The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of RPFC that PF contributions need to be deducted for training period of Junior Telecom Officers/Junior Accounts Officers and other similarly placed employees.
Bhartia Industries Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkutta HC) – The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act questioning the allowance of the said payments made on account of VRS by the Assessing Officer and an order under Section 263 of the Act dated March 4, 2003 was passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. In the said order the Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer was bound by the Circular dated January 23, 2001 issued by the Board as to the eligibility of deduction of such payment on account of VRS and he should not have allowed such payment. The Commissioner set aside the entire assessment for being made de novo and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in the light of the said Circular of the Board.
Cairn U.K. Holdings Ltd. In re (AAR) The relief provided for by the proviso to Section 112 is intended to cover cases where effect of inflation is not provided for. That is why the proviso specifies that the calculation of 10% of the Capital Gain should be “before giving effect to” indexation. ‘Before giving effect to’ connotes that effect has otherwise to be given.
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 15/6/2011 delivered by Honourable Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the matter of EPFO Vs. Roll well Forge Ltd. on the issue of initiating recovery action before expiry of limitation period of appeal prescribed under Sec.7-1 of the Act. While overturning the decision of Single Bench
Saraswati Engineering Vs CCCES (Cestat) – If the assessee has discharged the service tax liability on his own ascertainment or on the basis of ascertainment by the Central Excise officers and inform the Central Excise officer of payment of such service tax then, no notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid shall be served.
Transpek Si-lox Industry Ltd Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Mistake apparent from record must be obviously and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record as held by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC).
Mother son Jones Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- Since the assessee has already surrendered Rs.30 lacs in the four assessment years, three of which are preceding assessment years and during relevant assessment year, the assessee has disclosed Rs. 6,30,000/-.
ACIT Vs Hiren Jaswantrai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Derivative transactions carried out through stock exchanges from 1 April 2005 to 25 January 2006, which are recognised by the notification issued by the CBDT on 25 January 2006, would be eligible for being treated as non-speculative transactions within the meaning of clause (d) of proviso to s 43(5) and, accordingly, are available for set-off against regular business income.
It is the purpose or the proximity to the purpose, which would determine the character of the asset and, thus, that of the income arising there-from and, consequently, its assessability under the Act, going on to hold that where the amount was deposited in the bank to obtain a letter of credit for purchase of a capital asset (machinery), the interest thereon would only be a capital receipt, which shall go to reduce the cost of the relevant capital asset. The said decisions, in our view, full govern the present case, and the Revenue has misapplied the decisions by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court.
Weizmann Capital Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The income, which the Assessing Officer initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to the Assessing Officer independently to assess some other income.
