Friday, June 17, 2011

Some Case laws

1 2009 TMI - 33333 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun Versus R & B Falcon Drilling Co.
Dated: 24-04-2009
Assessee, a non-resident company received mobilization/ demobilization fee – such payment is not the actual reimbursement, rather, it includes the expenditure incurred by the company - it makes no difference whether the amount was paid or payable in or outside India - section does not exclude the mobilization/demobilization charges paid for transportation of the plant and machinery from the place out of India to the locations in India or its territorial waters - amount received are liable to be included in the `gross receipts and form part of the amount mentioned in s.s. (2) of Section 44BB


2 2009 TMI - 33332 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun. Versus Ensco Maritime Ltd.
Dated: 24-04-2009
Reimbursement of the catering charges to assessee-non-resident company - AO took the view that the aforesaid amount received by the assessee as catering charges is part of the amount on which ten per cent deemed profit is to be calculated u/s 44BB - ITAT and CIT(A) have erred in law in holding that the catering charges are liable to be excluded - held that catering charges cannot be excluded from the `amount' defined in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB - order of Assessing Officer is restored


3 2009 TMI - 33331 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.
Dated: 25-03-2009
Depreciation - Business of leasing – Leased equipment - contention of the assessee that the breakers were given on lease before the end of previous year and therefore, the same should be considered as "used" for the purpose of business - Assessee, admittedly had supplied the machinery before the end of the financial year and the assessee had received the lease rentals for the same. The fact whether the lessee had put to use the leased equipment would be irrelevant – revenue's appeal dismissed – Tribunal is right in allowing the assesses claim of deprecation


4 2009 TMI - 33330 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Titanor Components Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Dated: 29-04-2009
Depreciation - Tribunal holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired based on the value placed in the surveyors report and not on the actual cost incurred for acquisition(as contended by assessee) – no reason given by tribunal - it appropriate to remand the matter to the ITAT, before whom declaration u/s 158A was filed by the appellant with direction to admit the claim of assessee in the said declaration and to proceed further as per section 158A(5) after the Hon'ble Delhi HC adjudicates the appeals pending before it - orders of ITAT are quashed


5 2009 TMI - 33297 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
Dated: 04-03-2009
The demand of interest tax paid on finance charges was allowed in I.T. assessment by way of rectification of original assessment, when the assessee in fact paid the interest tax on finance charges. However, the assessee successfully contested the interest tax assessment on finance charges and got it deleted. Thereafter income tax assessment was again rectified by the assessing officer withdrawing the deduction granted on interest tax on finance charges which the assessee ceased to be entitled by virtue of the order of the Tribunal in the interest tax appeals filed by the assessee. - ITAT held that the provisions of section 154 is not applicable to this case - honorable HC upheld the decision of ITAT on technical ground of double taxation (without going into merits)


6 2009 TMI - 33295 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus Chemplast Sanmar Limited
Dated: 09-04-2009
Q. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the carry forward MAT credit available to the assessee was to be adjusted first before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C? - "Held Yes" - Q. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that Rule 12(1)(a) which lays down that every company has to furnish a return of income in Form No.1 and schedule G to the said form clearly lays down the manner of computation of the total income and also the order in which TDS, Advance Tax and Tax credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to, is against the intention of the legislation and hence not applicable? - "Held Yes" - Q. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering the fact that Form 1 had been substituted by the Income Tax (19th amendment) Rules 2001 with effect from 17.08.2001 and as such interest chargeable under Section 234B or 234C should be first deducted and thereafter tax credit under Section 115JAA should be given? - "Held Yes"


7 2009 TMI - 33292 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MINTRI TEA CO. PRIVATE LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALPAIGURI
Dated: 17-03-2009
Jurisdiction of AO to pass an order u/s 154 amending the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) and to make a prima facie adjustment in an intimation issued – held that Tribunal was not justified in holding that disallowance u/s 43B in respect of provident fund contribution, could be made as a prima facie adjustment u/s 143 (1) (a) – Tribunal was not justified in law in not deciding the contention of assessee that the order under Section 154 and revised intimation both were barred by limitation - assessee's appeal allowed


8 2009 TMI - 33291 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
BANGODAYA COTTON MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – IV
Dated: 17-03-2009
Additions on basis of materials seized from third party - genuineness and veracity of the materials (letters) seized from a third party - On the basis of the said three letters, AO held that in the assessment order, the consideration for the sale of the moveable assets were raised from Rs.1 crore to Rs.1.50 crore by the parties – CIT (A) rightly accepted the assessee's alternative contention that even assuming the money had changed hands but, neither the assessee nor the Special Officer appointed by HC have received the same - Therefore, addition on that account was required to be considered in the hands of the beneficial owner but it appears that without any reason the Tribunal dismissed the said contention - assessee must get a chance to prove the facts - matter remanded to AO


9 2009 TMI - 33289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shri Sandeep M. Shah and M/s. Sun and Deep Jewellers Versus V.D. Wakharkar & Anr.
Dated: 20-04-2009
Whether the CIT was justified in refusing waiver of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, while for the same reasons the penalty was waived - held that if the reasons given by the petitioners for delay in filing the income tax returns were sufficient for waiver of penalty, the said reasons should also be sufficient for waiver of interest under Sections 217 and 139(8) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, we hold that the Income-tax Commissioner was not justified in refusing the waiver of interest


10 2009 TMI - 33277 - KERALA HIGH COURT
NOORUL ISLAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Dated: 21-04-2009
Coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax, during pendency of the stay petition -– dispute regarding assessment of income tax (of assessee- Charitable Trust) under Section 158 BC for the block period – held that , it is unjust to recover the disputed tax coercively from the petitioner before at least the stay petition is considered by the Appellate Authority


11 2009 TMI - 33275 - KERALA HIGH COURT
K.S. NMANDAKUMAR Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
Dated: 07-04-2009
During appeal before tribunal against assessment order, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(C) has been initiated – notice for imposing penalty is on the same date as the date on which the assessment order is passed - in the interest of justice, held that the penalty appeal (statutory appeal preferred before the CIT (A)) is disposed of after the disposal of the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Commissioner (A) is directed to dispose of the same only after a decision is taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in assessment appeal


12 2009 TMI - 33274 - KERALA HIGH COURT
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
Dated: 01-04-2009
Withdrawal of Certificate issued under section 197 retrospectively i.e. from date of issue of certificate – jurisdiction to issue/withdraw the certificate - jurisdiction for issuance of certificate u/s 197(1) is rest with the CIT (TDS) whereas the certificates were issued by the Deputy CIT - petitioner points out that he has filed an application before the assessing officer and under the Act, the Deputy Commissioner is the assessing officer – held that, when the notification is issued by the CBDT conferring the power on the CIT (TDS), Deputy CIT did not have power to issue certificate - since the order was issued initially without the authority of law, CIT (TDS) has power to withdraw it – but it is not fair to allow the retrospective cancellation of the certificates - Writ petition is partially allowed


13 2009 TMI - 33273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax I Chennai Versus M/s. Five Star Marine Exports (P) Limited
Dated: 20-04-2009
Whether tribunal can decide appeal on merits against order of Commissioner (A)( who rejected the condonation application) - held that refusal to condone delay would tantamount to confirming the order of assessment, therefore appeal against it lies to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal can well go into the merits of the case – amendment in Section 80HHC has been challenged before various High Courts which are pending – therefore, Tribunal was right in remitting the matter to AO to await the outcome of the writ petition, without deciding whether the delay in filing the first appeal was condonable


14 2009 TMI - 33272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s. Three Bags India (P) Ltd.
Dated: 17-04-2009
Basis for computation of deduction u/s 80HHC – Section 80HHC is clear about this aspect that profit only is to be taken into account but not income and sub-section (3) of Section 115JA itself took care of the provisions relating to the adjustment of loss or depreciation and carry forward of the income – therefore, Tribunal rightly held that the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits u/s 115JA only, and not in the profit arrived at in regular basis


15 2009 TMI - 33271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s Aban Llyod Chiles Offshore Ltd.
Dated: 21-04-2009
Whether MAT credit is to be set off against from the tax payable before setting off the TDS and advance tax paid - Whether MAT Credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable - Whether the interest u/s 234B and 234C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation – held that Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act - held that the credit u/s 115JAA should be given effect to before charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - held that revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say that the MAT credit should be given only after tax and interest


16 2009 TMI - 33270 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III, Madras Versus Shri. P.N. Mallikarjuna Rao
Dated: 21-04-2009
Levy of surcharge under Section 113 in respect of the block assessment prior to 01.06.2002 - one has to read section 158BB with section 4 - Once section 158BB is to be read with section 4 then the relevant Finance Act of the concerned year would automatically stand attracted to the computation under Chapter XIV-B - Section 158BB looks to section 113 - proviso inserted in section 113 w.e.f. June 1, 2002 indicate that the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated would apply – this proviso is only clarificatory in nature not retrospective – revenue is justified in levying surcharge


17 2009 TMI - 33269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Dated: 21-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent n replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure- Whether replacement of independent complete machinery can be treated as revenue expenditure - Whether Tribunal was right in deciding the issue without going into the concept of Block of asset – there are a number of tests which are required to be considered while deciding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature. In the absence of the requisite details regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement, the matter could not be decided on merits and require to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals)


18 2009 TMI - 33268 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore Versus Rajashree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
Dated: 20-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that MAT credit has to be considered on payment of advance tax, therefore, such a payment or credit has to be taken into account while computing the interest under Section 234-B and 234-C – intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest – Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act – revenue appeal dismissed


19 2009 TMI - 33243 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PAWAN GUPTA and others
Dated: 15-04-2009
Procedure for making a block assessment – held that where the AO is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment order under chapter XIV B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - completion of the block assessment u/s 158 BC without allowing any opportunity u/s 143 (2) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore null and void ab initio - section 143 (2) has been specifically incorporated in the scheme of block assessment proceedings and that cannot be ignored – revenue's appeal dismissed


20 2009 TMI - 33242 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Smita Agrawal (Ind) .Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur & others
Dated: 08-04-2009
Failure of appellant authority in disposing the stay applications expeditiously in reasonable time - callousness on the part of the revenue authorities in sitting tight over the stay application compelling the assessee to run to the High Court by filing writ petition simply to get an order for expeditious disposal of the application for interim order - assessing authority, if it has received the information that the assessee has approached the appellate authority by filing appeal along with the stay application which is pending, must await the recovery till the decision is taken by the appellate authority on such stay application - Let a copy of this order be supplied to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi for information and necessary action.


21 2009 TMI - 33235 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Panasonic Home Appliances
Dated: 23-03-2009
Provision for doubtful debts and the provision for leave encashment – revenue contend that the liability was only a contingent liability and not an ascertained/determined liability, so it is not allowable - issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT, which is decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in following the judgment of the Supreme Court and allowing the assessee's appeal


22 2009 TMI - 33233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax VIII Chennai Versus International Clearing and Shipping Agency
Dated: 16-04-2009
Assessing Officer held that clearing and forwarding activities is not a profession, but a business, and brought the assessee's income to tax accordingly - Division Bench in identical case, held that "The assistance rendered by the clearing and shipping agent to those who import or export by attending to the documentation and ensuring the clearance of goods, cannot be regarded as profession" – action of AO is justified - In view of the Judgment of the SC in the case of Cochin Shipping Co. vs. ESI Corporation and the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of "International Clearing and Shipping Agency" question of law framed has to be answered in favour of the revenue


23 2009 TMI - 33222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus East Coast Constructions Limited
Dated: 16-04-2009
MAT credit - Whether the interest under Section 234 B and 234 C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation – held that assessee is entitled to adjust the MAT credit before charging interest u/s 234B and 234C – Whether the MAT credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of Schedule G of Form 1 AND Whether Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the Tax deducted at Source and Advance tax paid – held that Rule 12(1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act – appeal of revenue is dismissed


24 2009 TMI - 33221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Magna Electro Castings Ltd.
Dated: 15-04-2009
Assessing Officer is not entitled to touch the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act, while arriving at the book profit u/s 115J and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and therefore, the computation u/s 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only – therefore, Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction u/s 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted books profits u/s 115JA – revenue appeal dismissed


25 2009 TMI - 33220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s Vanavil Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.
Dated: 16-04-2009
MAT credit - Whether the interest under Section 234 B and 234 C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation – by applying ratio of decision of Division Bench in the case of M/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, held that assessee is entitled to adjust the MAT credit before charging interest u/s 234B and 234C – Whether the MAT credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of Schedule G of Form 1 AND Whether Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the Tax deducted at Source and Advance tax paid – held that Rule 12(1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act – appeal of revenue is dismissed


26 2009 TMI - 33219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd.
Dated: 16-04-2009
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the Tax deducted at Source and Advance tax paid - Whether the MAT credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of Schedule G of Form 1 - Whether the interest under Section 234 B and 234 C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation – held that all the questions are answered against the revenue and in favour of assessee


27 2009 TMI - 33218 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CIT Versus M/s Futura Polyester Limited (Formerly known as M/s Futura Polymers)
Dated: 16-04-2009
Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to any deduction under section 80HHC while determining the taxable income on the basis of the book profit under Section 115JA since the computation of business income under the regular provisions resulted in nil figure for each of the assessment years – held that, AO is not entitled to touch the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act, while arriving at the book profit under Section 115J and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and therefore, the computation under Section 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only


28 2009 TMI - 33217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Indbank Merchant Banking Services Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Dated: 16-04-2009
While completing the re-assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the provisions made for bad debts and Non-Performing Assets and preliminary expenses of under Section 35(D) - Following the Judgments by High Court in the case of T.N.Power Finance, held that Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of the provision made in respect of bad debts and Non Performing Assets which are considered irrecoverable – Following the Judgments by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd,, held that, Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to amortisation of preliminary expenses u/s 35D towards share issue expenses


29 2009 TMI - 33216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax-I Chennai Versus M/s. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Dated: 24-03-2009
Rendering of the commercial service and receiving commission in foreign exchange – during reassessment, claim for benefit u/s 80O was denied by AO - Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the ground that the re-assessment was not in accordance with Section 147 and was made on change of opinion - In respect of the other two assessment years also, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the activity of the assessee comes within the purview of Section 80-O as decided by the Delhi Bench in CAPTAIN K.C.SAIGAL and the receipt of commission in foreign exchange in India itself cannot deny the benefit to the assessee in view of the judgment of SC in the case of J.B.BODA AND CO. PVT. LTD. – held that there is no infirmity in order of tribunal


30 2009 TMI - 33214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Versus M/s. P.Sekar Trust and M/s. Peegee Trust
Dated: 15-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of the assessee-Trust, the beneficiaries and their shares are determinate and, therefore, the trustees could not be assessed for tax and the provisions of section 164 of the Income Tax Act are not attracted – Having regard to the terms contained in the trust deed that shares of the beneficiaries in a given particular accounting year are specific and determinable in the ratio, as provided, it could not be said that the beneficiaries are not identifiable on the date of the Trust deed and the share of the beneficiaries were unknown, there is no infirmity in decision of Tribunal – above question of law has necessarily to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue


31 2009 TMI - 33213 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ludhiana Improvement Trust Versus Commissioner of Income tax-III, Ludhiana
Dated: 26-03-2009
SCN issued proposing to hold special audit u/s 142(2A) – petitioner- trust has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing SCN - petitioner-Trust has also challenged the order referring the matter to Special Auditor, being totally arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution – records reveals that there are discrepancies in book of account of petitioner – neither petitioner appeared before AO nor any information was sent despite the fact that it was duly informed that time barring assessment is involved - argument of petitioner that special audit has been ordered to gain more time, is not impressive - writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed


32 2009 TMI - 33212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Universal Cold Storage Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Dated: 06-04-2009
Eligibility for deduction u/s 80HHC in case of export of both self manufactured goods and trading goods - A plain reading of section 80HHC makes it clear that, in such casesthe profits and losses in both trades have to be taken into consideration. If after such adjustments there is a positive profit the assessee would be entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC(1). If there is a loss the assessee would not be entitled to deduction


33 2009 TMI - 33211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes Versus Umayal Ramanathan
Dated: 06-04-2009
Compounding of offence – plea of the respondent for compounding u/s 279 (2) rejected by CBDT without any valid reasons – in similar case CBDT accepted the plea of the said assessee and ultimately compounded the offence - while so, adopting a different yardstick in the case of the respondent and refusing to compound the offence on the sole ground that she was convicted by the trial court, is discriminatory - single Judge considered the above said facts and rightly set aside the order passed by the third appellant(CBDT) - Court is of the considered view that pending appeal, the appellants can very well compound the offence sought for by the respondent


34 2009 TMI - 33210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax III Coimbatore Versus M/s K.G. Denim Ltd.
Dated: 16-04-2009
Assessing Officer is not entitled to touch the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act, while arriving at the book profit u/s 115J and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and therefore, the computation u/s 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only – therefore, Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction u/s 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted books profits u/s 115JA – revenue appeal dismissed


35 2009 TMI - 33209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai Versus M/s Ramco Industries Ltd.
Dated: 16-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure on renting and maintaining a guest house is allowable as business expenditure – in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Britannai Industries Ltd., this question is answered in favour of the revenue - Whether Tribunal was right in excluding sales tax and excise duty from the "total turnover" for the purpose of calculation of benefit u/s 80HHC – Held, yes - Whether Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery and purchase of templates as revenue expenditure – replacement of assets without increasing the production capacity would amount to revenue expenditure – but as there is no material regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement, matter require to be remitted back to the Commissioner of Appeals


36 2009 TMI - 33208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Chennai Versus M/s Tagros Chemicals of India Ltd.
Dated: 13-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that, Sales tax and Excise Duty do not form part of "turnover" for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before levying interest under section 234B and 234C - first question of law is covered against the revenue by the decision of the SC in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine, wherein it has been held that excise duty and sales tax cannot form part of the 'total turnover' under section 80HHC(3) - With regard to the second question of law, held that intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest, Once the intention is clear, the revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say that the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given only after tax and interest – both the questions of law has to be necessarily answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee


37 2009 TMI - 33206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai Versus M/s Raju Spinning Mills P. Ltd.
Dated: 15-04-2009
MAT credit - Assessing Officer has calculated the interest payable u/s 234B and 234C without considering the MAT credit u/s 115JAA paid in the earlier years - held that assessee is entitled to adjust the MAT credit before charging interest u/s 234B and 234C - Whether the MAT credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of Schedule G of Form 1 – held that Rule 12(1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act – appeal of revenue is dismissed


38 2009 TMI - 33201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CIT Versus SPEL Semiconductor Limited, Irbaz Leather P.Ltd. & M/s. Rane Brake Linings Limited
Dated: 13-04-2009
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction u/s 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the profit computed under the regular provision of law applicable to the computation of profits and gains of the business or profession - held that the assessing officer was not entitled to alter the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee under the provisions contained in the Companies Act while arriving at the book profit under Section 115JA and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and, therefore, the computation under section 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only


39 2009 TMI - 33200 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai Versus Mrs. Kulandai Theresa
Dated: 15-04-2009
Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the assessee had suppressed not only his non-agricultural income, but also his agricultural income. Therefore, when the undisclosed part of the non-agricultural income is worked out, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to give credit for the undisclosed part of the agricultural income and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue - Whether Tribunal was right in confirming the CIT(A) order – Held, yes

40 2009 TMI - 33198 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Molly Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Dated: 09-04-2009
Tax Recovery Officer in his order noted that Shri Subhash Arora as a Director of M/s.Subhash Arora Investment P. Ltd., has taken the loan of Rs.1.25 crores from Amit Jhaveri. Shri Subhash Arora is also a Director of the petitioner company – Petitioner company stood as a guarantor of Amit Jhaveri and M/s Subhash Arora Investment Pvt. Ltd. – Recovery of tax from petitioner company upheld


Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. regards. R R Makwana

No comments:

Post a Comment