CIT, Meerut v The District Excise Office (Allahabad High Court) – The argument of the learned senior standing counsel that Section 206C does not find place in any of its clauses of sub section (1) and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable ignores the clause referred to above in Sections 246 and/or 246A of the Act. The clause referred to above does not relate to any particular section of the Act. It will be attracted subject to fullfilment of its ingredients. It is in the nature of a residuary clause and gives a right to an assessee to challenge an order by way of appeal if he is so aggrieved subject to the condition that he denies his liability to be assessed under the Act.
Shayama Sanjay Shah v CIT (Gujrat High Court) – Though it is true that powers under section 273A of the Act are discretionary powers, it is equally true that powers conferred under a statute are required to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the said statute. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the Commissioner instead of recording satisfaction or otherwise in respect of the grounds prescribed under section 273A of the Act, has rejected the petition on irrelevant grounds, firstly, on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for failure in filing the return of income belatedly, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner had already paid the tax payable in consequence of the order of penalty, which ground in view of the provisions of section 273A of the Act should have, in fact, weighed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Commissioner has not exercised discretion as required under section 273A of the Act and as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to the relevant factors and as such cannot be sustained.
Indian Additives Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Fact that a particular MAM used by the taxpayer cannot be rejected without providing any cogent reasons. Further, the Tribunal has mentioned that if there exist significant amount of purchases from Associates enterprises , the same cannot be included while computing the gross margins under the Resale Price Method [RPM].
ITO, Mumbai Vs GSB Capital Markets Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether where the assessee has considered the amount receivable from debtor as bad debts in the books of account, no disallowance can be made for want of fulfilment of conditions of section 36(2) – Whether where the amount is given to the sister concern by the assessee interest-free out of own funds and for business purposes, no disallowance can be made for interest expenses u/s 40A(2)(a) – Whether the losses of mutual funds are rightly adjusted against the speculation profit on shares in view of explanation to section 73 – Whether where the amount is taken by the assessee under a business transaction, no addition can be made u/s 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while computing book profits and since the order of the CIT relates to non-disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income under clause (f) to Explanation(1) of sec 115JB; therefore, in view of the decisions cited above, the period of limitation provided for in 263(2) would commence from the date of original assessment which, in the instant case is 22.3.2004. Since the order of the CIT u/s 263 is dated 30.3.2009, therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- if adjustments had to be made to the closing stock, in the same token value of purchase/sale of goods and inventory had to be further adjusted to include the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. and even opening stock has to be recomputed in terms of section 145A of the Act, in which event there is no change in the end result and no case was made out by the Assessing Officer to make an addition. Even u/s. 43B of the Act so long as taxes were paid before the due date of filing of return of income addition cannot be made.
Convergys India Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, we note that gain is not on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange relating to assessee’s export activities. The same is with respect to the external commercial borrowings. This cannot be termed as derived from the export activity of the assessee. The assessee’s reliance in this regard on section 10A(4) does not come to its rescue, as the said sub-section only provides the formula for computing profits derived from the export activity. First, the income or gain has to be derived from export activity, only then the computation formula can be applied.
DIT Vs Brahamputra Capital Financial Services Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When assessee advances interest-bearing loans to a sister concern but declares the same as NPA in the balance-sheet as per RBI guidelines, even then interest can not be treated as realised and the same is not taxable income. The provisions of section 145 of IT Act cannot override section 5 of the Act; if income has neither actually accrued nor received within the meaning of section 5; whatever section 145 may say, such income cannot be charged to tax even though a book keeping entry may have been made recognizing such hypothetical income.
Chitranjan Jaiswal v CIT and Anr. – The order dated 9th February, 1996 clearly reveals that after initiation of the proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act of 1961, the Assessing Authority at its own has not dropped the proceeding upon satisfaction of his own without the help of the return. Admittedly, there was no regular assessment for the assessee of the year 1992-93 and petitioner was directed as well as required to submit the return in response to the notice under section 147/148 read with section 142 of the Act of 1961 and he duly submitted that return.
