Innovative Steals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The word “construction” though mainly connected to the building but it includes within its ambit a bridge under construction building, erection, elevation, establishment, assembly, manufacture, fabrication. It also includes an impressive construction structure, building, edifice, assembly, framework. Therefore, its ambit has not been restricted to only to construction of building.
Cosmic Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- The only ground taken in this appeal, filed by the assessee, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 2,70,744/- in respect of pre-operative expenses allocated to fixed assets. It is also mentioned that he erred in holding that the expenses were revenue in nature and not linked with installation of various assets.
GKW Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Only profit on the sale of the licence should be chargeable to tax under s 28(iiia) and not the profit which may come in the future on the sale of the licence.
The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt I about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effecf from 11-5-2000. The show cause notice is issued on 9-11-2004. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and decision of this court, it cannot be disputed mat when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show-cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal of the Apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factoies Ltd.’s case (supra) has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in Gujarat Carbon & Industries’ case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it is clearly stated that class of persons who come under Section 71-A are not brought under net of Section 73 and show cause notice issued to the assessee invoking Section 73 are not maintainable.
Sanjay Gala Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- In the present case, the assessee subscribed to shares in convertible foreign exchange and acquired the foreign exchange asset. In so far as this aspect is concerned, there is no dispute from the revenue authorities.
ADIT Vs Star Cruise India Travel Services (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India” but then since no part of the operations was carried out in India, no part of assessee’s income could have been thus taxable in India.
Ravina Khurana Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- The applicant wants to re-argue and re-agitate the issues/ questions which have been considered and decided by this Court in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The review application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- It is noted that the impugned assessment is in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and the Act does not specifically provide that the assessment made under Section 147 of the Act will be after issue of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact, AO has the basic jurisdiction to assess the income in terms of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act where he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.
Kanubhai M. Patel HUF Vs Hiren Bhatt (Gujarat High Court)- In the present case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010, whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010.
ITO Vs Audyogik Tantra Shikshan (ITAT Pune)- The assessee in its Cross Objection, has objected the penalty levied by the A.O with this contention that the A.O has not recorded his satisfaction against the alleged default of filing inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated under the statute in the A.Y. 2004- 05 and has failed to initiate the penalty proceeding during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee also prayed for awarding the cost u/s. 254(2B) of the Act to the assessee.
