Search Results For: Salil Kapoor


Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts whereby it is held that the CIT cannot treat the AO's order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without conducting an enquiry and recording a finding. If the Explanation is interpreted otherwise, the CIT will be empowered to find fault with each and every assessment order and also to force the AO to conduct enquiries in the manner preferred by the CIT, thus prejudicing the mind of the AO, This will lead to unending litigation and no finality in the legal proceedings which cannot be the intention of the legislature in inserting the Explanation

The ld PCIT has not referred to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act which has been inserted with effect from 01.06.2015 however we agree with the finding of the coordinate bench in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane v. Income Tax Officer [(2016) 70 taxmann.com 227], wherein it has been held that Explanation cannot said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the various High Courts, where the High Courts have held that before reaching a conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Commissioner himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Dayawanti vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 7, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A search assessment: Supreme Court stays operation of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dayawanti Gupta vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del). The High Court dealt with the issue whether an assessment u/s 153A can be made even if no incriminating material has been found during s. 132 search proceedings

In Dayawanti Gupta vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del), the assessee argued before the Delhi High Court that since no incriminating material was found during or pursuant to the search, additions, made on the basis of block assessment, were unsustainable inasmuch as they revisited finally settled assessments. It was submitted that for completing a block assessment, founded on search proceedings and notice under Section 153A, the assessing officer has to base the order on fresh materials found during the search, in the form of books of accounts, articles seized, or other similar materials. In this case, the revenue could not substantiate its plea that the assesses had concealed their income, because nothing suspect which could result in an addition to the income assessed during the previous years was in fact seized or taken into custody. Therefore, the four assessments for the block period in question had to be set aside

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Despite numerous judgements on the reopening of assessments, the Revenue authorities are repeating the same errors. Accordingly, Guidelines are laid down and the Revenue is directed to adhere to them

Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a routine basis, a large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the reopening of assessments by the Revenue under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and despite numerous judgments on this issue, the same errors are repeated by the concerned Revenue authorities. In this background, the Court would like the Revenue to adhere to the following guidelines in matters of reopening of assessments

Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs. ADIT (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 144C: Though service of the notice is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction upon the AO to deal with the matter, it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. Accordingly, the s. 143(2) notice has not only to be issued before the expiry of the limitation period but has also to be served upon the assessee before the expiry of the limitation period. Conflict between VRA Cotton Mills (P&H) and Lunar Diamonds 281 ITR 1 (Del) explained in light of CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989

Service under the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. The Hon’ble High Court, in our opinion, lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Devi’s case

Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(1) Explanation 10: The law laid down in PJ Chemicals 210 ITR 830 (SC) that only a subsidy or grant given to offset the cost of an asset can be reduced from the "actual cost" of the asset and not a general subsidy continues to hold good even after the insertion of Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). A subsidy/ grant from a foreign sovereign Country does not fall within Expl 10 because the foreign Country is not a "person" as defined in s. 2(31)

We have also gone through the provisions of Section 43(1) as well as Explanation 10 thereof. We noted that Section 43(1) defines the actual cost to mean the actual cost of the assets of the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by other person or authority. In the impugned case, we noted that what the ICICI has financed by way of conditional grant to the assessee is the amount received from USA under the project grant agreement for the Program for Acceleration of Commercial Energy Research. Now the question arises whether USA can be regarded to be a person or authority. In our view, this provision cannot be read without Explanation 10. From the reading of the said explanation, it is explicitly clear that if a portion of a cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person in the form of a subsidy or a grant or reimbursement, said subsidy grant or reimbursement as is relatable to the asset shall be reduced out of the actual cost of the assessee to the assessee. USA is a sovereign and cannot be Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India

Pr. CIT vs. Atotech India Ltd (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied in a case where the assessee has relied on legal opinion of a professional and there is no tax impact i.e. the loss disallowed in year one is allowed set-off in a later year

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had claimed the set off of its business income of Rs. 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years on the basis of a legal opinion received from a leading firm of Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal found nothing clandestine in the manner in which the opinion was sought. In any event, even our attention was not invited to anything which suggests any malafides either in the obtaining of the opinion or otherwise. Further, the loss was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment year, namely, assessment year 2002-2003

Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): While expenditure for purchase of a capital asset is capital expenditure, guarantee commission to acquire the asset on installment terms is revenue expenditure

Expenditure incurred for the purchase of the machinery was undoutedly capital expenditure; for it brought in an asset of enduring advantage. But the guarantee commission stands on a different footing. By itself, it does not bring into existence any asset of an enduring nature; nor did it bring in any other advantage of an enduring benefit. The acquisition of the machinery on installment terms was only a business exigency

CIT vs. Micro Instruments Company (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 9, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB: Fact that the AO allowed s. 80-IB deduction in the year of setting up does not disentitle him from examining the eligibility in subsequent years. As per the CBDT’s low tax effect circular, the tax effect has to be seen each year irrespective of the fact that a common issue arises over several years

An assessee must fulfill each of the conditions stipulated in Section 80-IB in each of the years in which the deduction thereunder is sought. The Assessing Officer would be entitled to ascertain in each of the assessment years whether or not the conditions of Section 80-IB remained fulfilled. In other words, even where an assessee is found to have fulfilled all the conditions of Section 80-IB in the initial assessment year and has on account thereof been granted the deduction thereunder, an Assessing Officer assessing the assessee’s income in subsequent years would be entitled to ascertain whether in that assessment year the conditions in Section 80-IB remained fulfilled or not. If not, he is bound to deny the deduction

Hyundai Rotem Company vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The TPO is required to be consistent in matters relating to selection of comparables. If a comparable has been included or rejected in an earlier year, he is not entitled to take a different view in a later year if there is no change in circumstances

Without any proper reason or change in the functionality and financial data, it cannot be held that these companies are to be excluded/included (as prayed for herein above), in the intermediary period of the assessment year under consideration. The TPO has to bring some material on record to show as to why these comparables which were excluded/included (as prayed for herein above) in the earlier year and also in succeeding year, cannot be excluded/included in the year under consideration

DCIT vs. Ikea Trading (India) P Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 30/ 37(1): Expenditure on repairs of rented premises, even if huge and accumulated, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Fact that CIT(A) admitted additional evidence is no justification for seeking a set aside to the AO if the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO: Savarana Spinning mills Limited 293 ITR 201 (SC) distinguished

The contention of the revenue that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. M/s. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 201 pleading that the most of the expenditure are not in the nature of current repair expenditure but accumulated repairs so even though the expenditure is revenue in nature, same is not allowable. We find that the reliance on this decision by the revenue is misplaced as in that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned about the modernisation and replacement expenses on the textile mill and it was held that it was not allowable. In the present case, the issue is not of repairs on plant and machinery but related to expenditure on building, further the building is also not owned by the assessee but is a rented premises. The expenditure would be dealt with by the provision of section 30. On reading of the above section, the accumulated repairs are not allowed when the assessee owns building and therefore as a tenant cost of repairs to the premises is allowable whether they are accumulated or current

Top