Astra Housing & Investment P. Ltd v CIT (Delhi HC) The crux of the ratio of above decisions is that a mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In order to be covered within the proviso of clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271, there has to be concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Incorrect claim may not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Everything depends upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish particulars of his income. When such particulars are furnished inaccurately, the liability would arise.
Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer & Another {(2011) 4 SCC 602; Decided on 08.03.2011} has held that there can be no review of a judgment, if appeal has already been decided. The Court observed the principles as follows.
The question of bar of limitation as well as setting aside the penalty is dependant on the leviability of excise duty on the impugned product. That is an issue which is to be decided by the Apex Court and the Apex Court is already seized of the matter. As the findings on that issue would have direct bearing in deciding the issues arisen in these appeals and all these issues arise out of the very same order, it is settled law that these issues cannot be bifurcated and decided by this court.
CIT Versus The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited (Delhi HC) Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act cannot be initiated merely based on the audit report . An audit is principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the auditor with regard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securing an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of revenue. As per para (3) of the circular issued by the Board on July 28, 1960, also an audit department should not in any way substitute itself for the revenue authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
Laxmi Civil Engineering Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) – After Section 80 IA was amended by the Finance Act, 2001, the section applies to an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing; or (ii) operating and maintaining; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills certain conditions. Those conditions are (1) ownership of the enterprises by a company registered in India or by a consortiums; (II) an agreement with the central or State Government, local authority or statutory body; and (iii) The Start of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995. The requirement that operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995 has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision under which deduction is available to an assessee who develops or operates and maintains, or develops, operates and maintains an infrastructure facility.
Rupa & Co. Ltd. Versus CIT (Calcutta HC) Honorable High Court has held that in the absence of any finding that any portion of the books of account maintained by the assessee was fictitious or contained wrong entry, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to make an average of discount without discarding the actual discount given by the assessee for the relevant year as appearing from the books of account. An assessee has a right to give different rates of discount to his different customer depending upon his relation with such customer or on the basis of business policy depending upon the time of sale, particular item of sale or the region or the place of sale and unless, any of the entries relating to such discounts is found to be wrong, the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the actual discount given by the assessee.
Commissioner of Income tax v. Emerald Jewel Industry (P) Ltd.( Madras High Court)- Assessee Company is eligible for deduction under Sec. 80-IA in respect of windmill installed by it and the unabsorbed depreciation set off in earlier years could not be reduced from profits for computing deduction u/s. 80-IA.
In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)
ITO V. M/s Elka Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. ( ITAT Delhi) – The issue is whether the promotional expenses incurred by a company engaged in business of cosmetics on ‘Testers’, and ‘merchant display’ which were supplied free of cost to the retailers are capital in nature merely because it also promotes goodwill of the company. It was held that nature of expenditure incurred in the assessee’s line of business is absolutely essential for the day to day conduct of the business of the assessee-company and the same is allowable as revenue expenditure.
