Pannalal Kejriwal Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Whether in the facts of the present case the transactions relating to the shares of ITC Ltd. and Tata Tea Ltd. on behalf of the two partners where the assessee-firm apparently acted as broker could be said to be the transaction on behalf of the assessee-firm itself and the profit of the two partners can be added to the income of the assessee-firm.
The issue is whether the payments made to the parent company on account of reimbursement of salaries in relation to services rendered by the personnel on deputation to the JV attract the liability of TDS. The Counsel for the assessee and the DR made a contradictory statement with respect to the fact that the details have been furnished before the AO. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to verify the details of expenditure and examine whether the payments were actual reimbursement of expenses pertaining to personnel deputed with the assessee company. However the AO shall restrict himself to the evidences which have been submitted before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue in accordance with the law.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited. vs Sami Khatib Of Mumbai (Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited). A division bench of the Bombay high court last week dismissed the appeal of Cadila Pharmaceuticals against the judgement of a single judge bench restraining Cadila from manufacturing, marketing or exporting medicinal preparations under the trade mark “Hb TONE”/ “HB TONE” or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademarks of another company, Medley Pharmaceuticals, namely “ARBITONE”, “RB TONE” or “HB RON”. The complaint was that Cadila was “passing off” the products with similar names.
ITO v Murlidharan G Pillai – Neither the deposits are proved by the assessee nor the claim of peak is established by him. In fact assessee has also failed to show real destination of the money through bank draft so purchased by him out of the cash deposited in the bank account thereby suppressing material facts in understanding the nature of cash inflow and its destination. Entire transaction of deposits in the bank account remained under crowd of secrecy and, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee remained unsatisfactory. Even the benefit of withdrawal through ATM mentioned as above cannot be given importance because they are apparently for household purposes and cannot be said to be available for redeposit in absence of any other evidence of meeting out household expenditure by the assessee. We apparently uphold the contentions of Revenue that entire sum of Rs.17,48,500/- deserves to be confirmed. As a result, we uphold the order of AO setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- When the High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u!s 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171].
The assessee, hired Millers and Rollers, for the purpose of carrying out his road contract works. According to the revenue, since in the case on hand, the hire charges in respect of both the Millers and Rollers hired by the assessee contained a portion of labour charges incurred by the respective owners of the concerned vehicles/machineries towards operation of the respective vehicles/machineries along with labour and consequently, the relevant provision applicable for effecting TDS was section 194C and not 194-I of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court last week ruled that an arbitration clause in a contract would not exclude the power of the high courts or the Supreme Court to decide disputes between the parties. The court thus dismissed the appeal of East Central Railway in the case, Union of India vs Tantia Construction Ltd. In this case, the railway awarded a project to the construction firm. Later, additional work had to be done and the firm was asked to undertake that too, at the cost dictated by the railway. This was resisted by the firm which moved the Patna high court. It stated that the entire work could not be thrust on the firm at its risk and cost. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it could vary the nature of the work according to the terms of the contract. The government also argued that the courts could not interfere in the dispute as there was an arbitration clause.
Jayant Agro Chemicals Ltd v ITO and Others – As per the proviso to s 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years and there is no material on record to suggest that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. From the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it cannot even remotely be said that there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Presumption on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to achieve 82% value addition is not even case of the licensing authority who has imposed the condition regarding value addition. The notice impugned in the petition for reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained.
Addl. CIT v Weizmann Ltd. ITAT, Mumbai * As long as the assessee has sufficient interest free funds, the presumption to be taken is that the investments are made out of such interest free funds. Mere fact of allowing interest free advance at a rate lower than the rate on which borrowings are made, cannot justify the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds. The CIT(A) was justified in making ad-hoc disallowance on account of foreign travelling expenses since the complete details of expenses were not provided by the assessee.
Ramesh Babu Rao vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Considering the fact that assessee is not a broker or sub-broker and also not having any office establishment and also on the fact that all the shares as available on 0 1.04.2005 were sold mostly by the end of May and few shares at the end of September, assessee has intended to be an investor subsequent to the change in the scheme of tax by the Finance Act 2005. On these facts, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee’s transactions are to be treated as capital gains, short term or long term depending on the period of holding.
