In DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations 106 ITD 193 the Special Bench held in the context of s. 80HHC that the deduction is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where s. 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment, the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits u/s 115JA was clearly brought out and it was rightly held that in s. 115JA relief has to be computed u/s 80HHC(3)/(3A). It was held that once the law itself declares that the adjusted book profit is amenable for further deductions on specified grounds, in a case where s. 80HHC (80HHE in the present case) is operational, it becomes clear that computation for the deduction under those sections needs to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80HHC & 80HHE has to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit u/s 115JA and not on the basis of the profits computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gains of business. We agree with the view taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal

Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income – Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks

On facts, the argument that the SLA is in essence a distributorship agreement for the marketing of IBM computer programs and that the IP licenses granted to IBMA is only to enable it to carry on the function of a distributor is not acceptable. The SLA is not a distribution agreement which confers distribution rights independently of the grant of IP rights. There is no reference in the SLA to the payments being for the exercise of general distributorship rights. Rather, the payments are described as being for the acquisition of the stated IP rights. The detail of the SLA concerns the definition of IP and IP rights. There is no such detail with respect to distribution rights. The rights/content granted by the SLA are, in each case, rights/content of a kind contemplated by Article 12(4) and so the whole of the consideration is assessable as “royalty”

In our view, the re-opening of assessment is fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, on the merits of the case, it would be open to the assessee to raise all contentions with regard to the amount of Rs.98.46 lakhs being offered for tax as well as it’s contention on Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

As regards the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that having not assailed the correctness of some of the orders passed by the Tribunal and a decision of the High Court of Karnataka, the revenue cannot be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and choose and challenge the orders passed in the cases before us, it would suffice to observe that such a proposition cannot be accepted as an absolute principle of law, although we find some substance in the stated grievance of the assessees before us, because such situations tend to give rise to allegations of malafides etc. Having said so, we are unable to hold that merely because in some cases revenue has not questioned the correctness of an order on the same issue, it would operate as a bar for the revenue to challenge the order in another case. There can be host of factors, like the amount of revenue involved, divergent views of the Tribunals/High Courts on the issue, public interest etc. which may be a just cause, impelling the revenue to prefer an appeal on the same view point of the Tribunal which had been accepted in the past. We, may however, hasten to add that it is high time when the Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy, laying down strict parameters for the guidance of the field staff for deciding whether or not an appeal in a particular case is to be filed. We are constrained to observe that the existing guidelines are followed more in breach, resulting in avoidable allegations of malafides etc on the part of the officers concerned

he rule against bias or interest is based on three maxims (i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause; (ii) Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done; and (iii) Judges, like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. The first requirement of natural justice is that the Judge should be impartial and neutral and must be free from bias. To decide whether there is “bias”, the “real likelihood test” has to be adopted. In each case, the Court has to consider whether a fair minded and informed person, having considered all the facts would reasonably apprehend that the Judge would not act impartially. To put it differently, the test would be whether a reasonably intelligent man fully apprised of all the facts would have a serious apprehension of bias. In deciding the question of bias one has to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct

Pursuant to a Writ Petition alleging inaction by the Government on the unearthing of unaccounted money, the Supreme Court set up a High Level Committee to act as a Special Investigation Team to supervise the investigation by the Government into black money. In the course of the ruling, the Court considered the impact of the Double taxation Avoidance Agreements, the Vienna Convention and the judgement in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC). The Court strongly disapproved of the stand taken by the Government (click here) that the names of the tax evaders was a “secret” and could not be revealed under the India-Germany DTAA

The department filed a SLP challenging the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing an application requesting condonation of delay of 656 days in filing the appeal. The delay was explained as having been caused by “several facts such as non traceability of case records, procedural formalities involved in the Department and the papers are to be processed through different officers in rank for their comments, approval etc. and then the preparation of the draft of appeal memo, paper book and the administrative difficulties such as shortage of staff“. HELD dismissing the SLP: In our opinion, the said explanation does not make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

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) where it was held that (a) it was open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment and another relating to business of dealing in shares, (b) that a finding of fact had been arrived at by the Tribunal as regards the two distinct types of transactions namely, those by way of investment and those for the purposes of business, (c) that there should be uniformity in treatment and consistency when facts and circumstances are identical particularly in the case of the assessee and (d) that entries in books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income though they have a bearing

The Commission is of the view that the members of the raiding party may take their own time to conclude the search & seizure operations but such operations must be carried out keeping in view the basic human rights of the Individual. They have no right to cause physical and mental torture to him. If the officer-in-charge of the Interrogation/recording of statements wanted to continue with the process he should have stopped the same at the proper time and resumed it next morning. But continuing the process without any break or interval at odd hours up to 3:30 AM, forcing the applicant and/ or his family members to remain awake when it is time to sleep was torturous act which and can not be countenanced in a civilised society. It was violative of their rights relating to dignity of the individual and therefore violative of human rights. Even die-hard criminal offenders have certain human rights which can not be taken away. The applicant’s position was not worse than that. In the opinion of the Commission, the Income Tax Department should ensure that the search & seizure operations at large in future are carried out without violating one’s basic human rights