Siel Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/- being amount claimed by the assessee u/s 43B of the IT Act. The assessee was asked to establish the facts from the records and from the bank accounts, but the same was never produced. Assessee contended before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that certificate of CA is sufficient for allowing such deduction. When the factual evidence was again called for, it was stated that the details were related to 10 years old bank record and the same is not readily available. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has failed to establish the evidence of such payments before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and also before him. hence, he sustained the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/-.
CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the Department’s Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom). The Tribunal has achieved a pure finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purpose of business. The tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee maintaining two separate portfolios: one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. The tribunal held that delivery based transactions in the present case should be treated as those in the nature of investment transactions, and the profit received thereof should be treated either as short-term or, as the case may be, long-term capital gain, depending on the period of holding.
Raytheon Company v Dy CIT (ITAT Delhi) – In a turnkey contract, in which the assessee was under an obligation to supply the equipment and software as well as install them, the profit should be taxed on the completion of each milestone or at the time of handing over the functioning system to the contracting party. The supply of the equipment and software constituted a milestone in the contract and the income therefrom arose in the year of shipment, which was in a previous year.
M/s. PCBL Industrial Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata & Anr. (High Court of Calcutta)- Whether the Explanation to section 73 which creates a legal fiction by which the purchase and sale of shares specified in the said Explanation which is specifically used for the purpose of section 73 as deemed speculation business can be applied to sections 70, 71 and 72 and in determining the gross total income the said Explanation to section 73 can at all be applied while considering the set off of loss under sections 70 and 71 and carry forward of such loss under sections 70 and 71 and carry forward of such loss under Section 72 of the Act? HELD- In favour of the assessee
Kerala High Court has vide its order dated 16.06.2011 granted interim stay against any coercive steps of recovery of service tax or against any proceedings for imposing penalty for a period of two months on Restaurant and short term accommodation service.
CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora (Delhi High Court) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 17
Sami Labs Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) – Assessee had to incur cultivation expenses to ensure adequate and steady supply of coleus plants from the farmers which were an essential input for the continuous processing in research and development activities of the assessee. Thus, these expenses incurred by the assessee for a commercial expediency and were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. In essence, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the cultivation expenses of Rs.90.64 lakhs claimed by the assessee.
Kumudam Printers Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Madras high Court)- Whether capital gain arising out of the sale of land and building is liable to be included for computation of book profits under Section 115J – Whether when there is no failure on part of the appellant to disclose any material fact at the time of the original assessment and hence, the reopening of the assessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148 issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is liable to be annulled. – Assessee `s appeal allowed.
CIT Vs A Y Broadcast Foundation (Kerala High Court) – Generally, the activities refereed to therein i.e. production of television and radio programmes and telecasting and broadcasting of the same are commercial activities. Further the object clause provided for the assessee to act as an agent, broker, liasioner, introducer etc., which are purely commercial activities intended to make profit. Since the assessee is not holding any business in charity or distributing any surplus for charitable purposes, the question to be considered is whether the carrying on of the activities referred to in the object clause by itself constitute advancement of any object of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act.
Exxon Mobil Company India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)-A comparable cannot be eliminated just because it is a loss making unit. Similarly, a higher profit making unit cannot also be automatically eliminated just because the comparable company earned higher profits than the average. In other words, as a general principle, both loss making unit and high profit making unit cannot be eliminated from the comparables unless, there are specific reasons for eliminating the same which is other than the general reason that a comparable has incurred loss or has made abnormal profits.
