DCIT Vs M/s Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It is by now well-settled that if the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer is of revenue nature, the same is entirely deductible even if there accrues an advantage of enduring nature in favour of the taxpayer as a result of the said expenditure. This is because going by the very nature of the expenditure being revenue, it operates in the revenue field leaving the capital field untouched.
Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) – In this case ld CIT(A) had adjudicated upon on all the issues. Therefore, the assessment order has merged in the order of CIT(A). Hence, ld. CIT was debarred to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessment cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely on the basis of a complaint and that too for the purpose of making roving enquiries.
DCIT Vs M/s Mcleod Russel India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) – Whether FBT is payable even in the absence of any taxable income – Whether provision of section 115-O & 115WA are pari-materia and hence FBT is leviable only to the extent of those expenses which are directly relatable to the Income taxable under the Income Tax Act – Whether when only 40% income of a tea company is chargeable to tax, even FBT liability arises on only 40% of expenses. – Revenue’s appeal allowed.
ITO Vs M/s Kailashpati Overseas Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) – Whether when assessee submits the relevant details in respect of share application money such as PAN Number, confirmation and the bank particulars it can be said that the assessee has discharged its burden and no addition can be made on the basis of investigation averments, and it is incumbent on the AO to prove that averments of investigation wing applies in the case of the assessee-Held-Yes.
J L Morison (India) Ltd Vs ACIT (Kolkata ITAT) – It is now settled law that if, while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts and other details, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income, the ld. C.I.T., while exercising his power under sec. 263 of the Act, is not permitted to substitute his own view about the computation of income in place of the income assessed by the A.O., unless the order of the A.O. is patently unsustainable in law.
DCIT Vs. Akshay Eminence Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The provisions of s. 80IB(10) of the Act have not subscribed that the assessee was required to begin the construction work after obtaining the approval from the local authorities and that before getting such approval if the assessee begins the construction work, such construction was not recognized. What really matter here is the date of approval of the plan, but, not the date on which it was communicated?
DHL Lemur Logistics (P) Ltd. v DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – A well reasoned and well discussed order also facilitates appreciation when the same is called in question before the superior forum. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. (supra) as well as that of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gap International Sourcing India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and having regard to the fact that the DRP has passed the order giving directions to the AO under section 144C without giving proper consideration to the elaborate submissions made on behalf of the assessee on the main preliminary issue, we set aside the said order and remit the matter to the file of the DRP with a direction to consider the objections of the assessee on this issue as well as the other issues once again and pass a proper and speaking order giving direction under section 144C.
Stewart Holl (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Court held that the different brands of tea which were mixed by the assessee in Nilgiri’s case for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to the formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of mixing, qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into existence was of different quality and flavour than the different brands of tea which went into the mixture.
Added In Income Tax Case Laws CIT v Heera Construction Co Pvt Ltd (High Court of Kerala) – In view of the application of the 2nd proviso, the assessee is not entitled to complete immunity from payment of penalty on the undisclosed income returned by them under clause (a) of section 158BC, not only because of their failure to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) to (iv) of the 1st proviso but by virtue of the addition made in the assessment of substantial amount of undisclosed income by which the assessee forfeits the benefit of the 1st proviso in regard to immunity from penalty on the tax payable on undisclosed income returned.
Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT, Panaji -(High Court of Bombay at Goa) – The power conferred by Section 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the AO to re-open the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in assessment. Moreover, it is necessary for the AO to first observe whether there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and having observed that there is such a failure to proceed under Section 147. It must follow that where the AO does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed under Section 147.
