Surplus received by the assessee upon cancellation of forward foreign exchange contract was a capital receipt not liable to tax, as the foreign exchange acquired under the contract is for the purpose of discharging an obligation on capital account. Mere cancellation of the contract does not result in any transfer of any asset, even if the extended definition under section 2(47) is made applicable.

Dy. CIT vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 48 (Guj.)

Amount received by assessee towards reimbursement of travelling expenses of its technicians who were deputed to the establishment of a customer is not chargeable to tax.

Director IT vs. Krup Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR 251 (Bom.)

Rental income earned by assessee a partnership firm by letting out its property to its partners is not exempt on the principle of mutuality.

Prabhashankar Plaza vs. ITO (2010) 40 DTR 37 (Karn.)

Interest on enhanced compensation accrues from year to year and has to be spread over respective years.

Sajjansingh N. Chauhan vs. ITO (2010) 38 DTR 155 (Guj.)

Interest on Government securities can be said to accrue only when it becomes due and therefore there cannot be charge to such income until such time that becomes due.

CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 173 (Bom.)

When there is outright purchase of plant know-how and not a case of transfer of interest, the payment could not be treated as royalty.

CIT vs. Maggronic Devices (P) Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxman 382 (HP)

Merely because the assessee society earned some profit, does not make the society disentitle for exemption under section 10 (23C) (iv) of the Income– tax Act, 1961.

Haryana State Counselling Society vs. Chief CIT (2010) 40 DTR 169 (P&H)

Where the assessee trust is a educational institute which existed only for the purpose of education, then merely because surplus arises from the activities of the trust for conducting educational activities would not disentitle the trust for exemption under section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Vanita Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (2010) 40 DTR 225 (Bom.)

Where loan was granted by an employer at rate of interest less than lending rate of State Bank of India, such a loan is to be regarded as a concessional loan and consequently, value of perquisite thereon is to be calculated.

All India Punjab National Bank Officers’ Association vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank (2010) 190 Taxman 221 (MP)

For the assessment year prior to A.Y. 2002–03, non compete fee received by the assessee from employer company on his retirement for not taking up any employment was held to be a capital receipt and cannot be termed as, ‘profit in lieu of salary’.

CIT vs. A.K. Khosla (2010) 39 DTR 82 (Mad.)

Where the assessee renounced the right to subscribe to shares in favour of unknown persons (by foregoing the right to subscribe to right shares) for nil consideration, there is no transfer, hence the notional loss on account of diminution in the value of its shares cannot be allowed.

CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. & Anr. (2010) 39 DTR 49 (Kar.)

Where the assessee had sold its ancestral property without converting the same into stock-in-trade the gain arising on sale of such property was to be taxed as capital gain and not as business income.

CIT vs. Raja Malwinder Singh (2010) 40 DTR 273 (P&H)

Profit on sale of land by the assessee which was received by him from the owner of the land in pursuance of a development agreement was taxable as ‘capital gain’, when there was no material to hold that the assessee was indulged in business activity.

CIT & Anr. vs. S. Rajamannar (2010) 40 DTR 282 (Karn.)

Where assessee had leased out plant and machinery to another concern and income assessed as its business income investment allowance on such plant and machinery is allowable.

CIT vs. Rieta Biscuit Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxman 188 (P & H)

Asset (Trucks) purchased in the name of director of the assessee (a company) just for convenience & funds for purchase of trucks had been invested by assessee. Income from trucks was offered for tax by assessee company. Held depreciation cannot be denied.

CIT vs. Varanasi Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxman 60 (All)

Since workers’ quarters were let out as a part of plant and income so derived was assessed as business income, claim for depreciation had nexus with the business of assessee. Hence, depreciation to be allowed.

CIT vs. Rieta Biscuit Co. Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxman 188 (P & H)

Ex-gratia payment made in excess of the limit prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is allowable business expenditure either under section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, I961.

CIT vs. Maina Ore Transport P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 100 (Bom.)

Where there were sufficient funds of partners in the opening balance and sufficient profit has been earned during the year and no borrowed funds diverted as interest free funds to the sister / associate concerns. The assessing officer cannot disallow a part of the interest paid on the funds borrowed by the assessee.

Jt. CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289 (Chhattisgarh)

Debt taken into account in computing the income from money lending business. Money lending business discontinued, bad debt is allowable.

CIT vs. Rajini Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 216 Taxation 553 (Mad.)

Amount of subsidy shown as receivable in earlier year by the assessee which were not received and as such written off by it, cannot be treated as bad debts, as the subsidy is not receivable by any assessee as a matter of right. However, the same may be allowable as business expenditure under section 37 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 86 (Del.)

Where assessee following cash system of accounting, the expenditure incurred for purchase of second hand machinery for using its spare parts is revenue expenditure and the same is deductible in the year in which the sale consideration was paid even though the machinery was received in India after the end of relevant year.

Aswath N. Rao (Dr.) vs. ACIT (2010) 38 DTR 205 (Kar.)

Expenditure incurred on issue of convertible debentures is to be allowed as revenue expenditure.

CIT vs. ITC Hotels Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxman 430 (Kar.)

Assessee is entitled to the proportionate deduction, of premium on redemption of non-convertible debenture.

CIT vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 313 (Bom.)

Assessee did not acquire an asset of a capital nature by obtaining a non exclusive licence for five years restricted to the territory of India to manufacture and use tube making machines as the proprietary rights in the patents continued to vest in the licensor and therefore the technical know how fees paid by the assessee under the terms of the agreement is allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT vs. Essel Propack Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 26 (Bom.)

Explanation – Expenditure for the purpose of violation of law — Payment for compounding an offence is hit by explanation to section 37.

Millennia Developers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 188 Taxman 388 (Kar.)

Expenditure incurred by assessee in connection with load extension and on purchase of distribution panel was allowable as revenue expenditure incurred in ordinary course of assessee’s business.

CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works (2010) 40 DTR 46 (P&H)

Once the assessee gets back the amount which was claimed and allowed as business expenditure during the earlier year, the deeming provision in section 41(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961, comes into play and it is not necessary that the Revenue should await the verdict of a higher Court or Tribunal. The Court or Tribunal upholds the levy at a later date, the assessee will not be without remedy to get back the relief.

CIT vs. Beirsdorf (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 106 (Bom.)

There is no remission or cessation of liability within the meaning of section 41(1), on unilateral entry of write back of the unclaimed credit balances by the assessee.

CIT vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 313 (Bom.)

Employer’s as well as employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and inspection charges thereon paid by the assessee beyond due dates prescribed under the relevant labour statute but before filing return of income are allowable business expenditure.

CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works (2010) 40 DTR 46 (P&H)

Payment of employees and employers contribution to PF made beyond the due dates could not be disallowed under section 43B for the asst year 2003-04.

CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 39 DTR 210 (P & H)

Distribution of assets among the partners at the time of dissolution of the firm is to be assessed under section 45(4) and the same is not covered by section 50(1). Assessing Officer was free to refer the assets for valuation under section 55A, as the transfer value shown in the book value which cannot be accepted as the fair market value of the assets i.e. land and building.

CIT vs. Kumazha Tourist Home (Dissolved) (2010) 38 DTR 166 (Ker.)

Enhanced compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of waste lands and trees by the State Government under the Jagir Abolition Act is taxable as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b), therefore, the amount of enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax despite the fact that the cost of acquisition of the said capital asset is nil.

Sajjansinh N. Chauhan vs. ITO (2010) 38 DTR 155 (Guj.)

The assessee company filed a return declaring loss of Rs. 4,71,54,210/- for the A. Y. 2000-01. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had outstanding liability of Rs. 19.77 crores, used for purchase of shares of group companies. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee company created capital loss by entering into transaction on the same date to evade tax liability. He disallowed the said capital loss on sale of shares on the ground that these shares were purchased from the funds made available by the group companies from the investment held by it. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the loss. The learned CIT(A) upheld the said disallowance.

On appeal to Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal was of the view that no benefit of capital loss had been taken by the assessee till date by adjusting it against other long term capital gains. It further held that the transaction could not be thrown out merely because it was carried out a few days before amalgamation of the company. As noted by the Tribunal, neither the assessee company nor the amalgamated company adjusted the capital loss on account of sale of these shares against any long term capital gains even till A. Y. 2002-03. No tax benefit was, therefore taken by the assessee company for at least two years after the capital loss was booked by it. Therefore, it could not be said that the transactions in question were a colourable device, meant to gain some unfair tax advantage. Hence, no substantial questions of law is involved and it has to be dismissed.

CIT vs. Gillette Diversified Operations P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 226 (Del.)

Set off of the sale proceeds was available to the assessee against the purchase cost of new property falling under the same block of assets.

CIT vs. Scindia Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 39 DTR 12 (Bom.)

When assessee had been allowed depreciation on flat in question as a business asset up to asst year 1995-96, flat continued to be business asset, not allowing the depreciation for two years prior to date of sale, profit arising on sale of said flat would be assessable as short term capital gain.

CIT vs. Shakti Metal Depot (2010) 189 Taxman 329 (Ker.)

For the purpose of calculation of period of six months the date to be calculated from the date of receipt issued by the national housing bank and not from the date of issue of certificate.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR 91 (Bom.)

Assessee engaged in contract carriage of goods to be delivered to purchaser but not delivering is owner of goods liable to tax on them. Goods are "valuable article" addition of value of goods short delivered in hands of assessee is valid.

D. N. Singh vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 304 (Patna)

Sale of jewellery disclosed in the VDIS, 1997. Certificate had been issued. Once identity of purchasers were accounted for, in the absence of any material to the contrary it was difficult to hold that the transactions were not genuine. Deletion of addition by the Tribunal was justified.

CIT vs. Kiran Deepak Kukreja (2010) 190 Taxman 393 (Bom.)

Stock shown more to bank, additions deleted by the Tribunal was confirmed.

ITO vs. Bhagwati Prasad Raika (2010) 39 DTR 45 (Chhattisgarh)

Addition in the hands of the assessee having been made merely on the basis of a third party statement without there being any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition particularly when the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine the persons who made such a statement.

Dy. CIT vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj.)

Adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and loss of other units – Mandate of sections 80A and 80B(5) require that GTI should be computed after setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. For allowing deduction under section 80C to 80U. Non-obstante clause in 80-I(6) cannot restrict 80A(2) and 80B(5) – Since 80AB provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 80A r.w.s. 80B(5) would prevail over other provisions in Chapter VI-A – Section 80AB makes it clear that computation to be as per the provision of this Act.

CIT vs. Arif Inds. Ltd. (2010) 231 CTR 271 (All)

Exchange rate fluctuation in the EEFC account as well as interest which has arisen as a result of deposits maintained in EEFC account which is not out of the sale proceeds for the year or on account of delayed realization of the sale proceeds cannot be regarded as being part of the profit derived from export of goods or merchandise, therefore, the same cannot be included in profit of the business while calculating deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT vs. Shah Originals (2010) 39 DTR 145 (Bom.)

Where the assessee is a one hundred per cent (100%) exporter and it had no other business. Interest earned on fixed deposits made out of business funds for obtaining loan for export business has to be treated as business income and not income from other sources and consequently such interest income is eligible for deduction under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT & Anr. vs. Hajee Jaffar Shariff (2010) 40 DTR 81 (Karn.)

Items which are unrelatable to export activities must be excluded in the computation of business profits in order not to present distortion in the computation of deduction under section 80HHC.

CIT vs. Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. (2010) 232 CTR 52 (Bom.) / 323 ITR 429 (Bom.)

Activity of assembly of gensets from various components amounts to manufacture or production for purpose of deduction under section 80IA.

CIT vs. Jaikson Engineers Ltd. (2010) 231 CTR 348 (Del.)

Assessee carrying on the business of container handling cranes at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust can be considered as developing, maintaining and operating an infrastructural facility is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA.

CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 54 (Bom.)

Where advance amounts are collected from prospective flat buyers and the same are parked in bank deposits, interest is received on such funds qualifies for deduction under section 80-IB.

CIT vs. Lok Holdings (2010) 189 Taxman 452 (Bom.)

Promissory note drawn by purchaser of goods discounted by assessee with bank. Reimbursement of discounting charges by purchaser with interest. Interest on delayed payment of price of goods sold is part of sale price and derived from industrial undertaking and deduction to be allowed. Interest received from unsecured loans not received from industrial undertaking hence does not form part of business income for deduction under section 80-IB.

CIT vs. Vidyut Corporation (2010) 324 ITR 221 / 39 DTR 252 (Bom.)

Assessee would be entitled to relief under section 80I at rate of 20% of profit without allowing it deduction under section 80HH.

CIT vs. Venus Electricals (2010) 190 Taxman 89 (Guj.)

Interest earned by co-operative banks on deposits of its non – SLR funds is eligible for deduction under section 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT vs. Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 307 (All)

Computation of arm’s length provision – Maintainability of Writ – Opportunity of being heard – As alternatively remedy of filing objections to the Order of TPO though approaching to the Dispute Resolution Panel provided under section 141C, no Writ could be entertained.

Messe Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 231 CTR 176 (Del.)

Long-term capital loss on sale of shares computed with indexation was liable to be set off against the long-term capital gain earned from sale of bonus shares computed without indexation.

CIT vs. Anuj A. Sheth (HUF) (2010) 38 DTR 26/324 ITR 191 (Bom.)

Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation has to be set off while computing the book profit under section 115JA.

CIT vs. Gokudas Apparels (P) Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 199 (Kar.)

Board as a quasi-judicial authority while exercising the power under section 119(2)(a), would be entitled to entertain application from an individual assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer declining the waiver of interest under section 234C and while doing so it is expected in law to give reasons while considering and passing order on such application.

Precot Mills Ltd. vs. CBDT (2010) 40 DTR 54 (Mad.)

Assessee must be given an opportunity of being heard before transferring the case, further "administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation" cannot be said to be the reasons as envisaged in section 127(1). The order was quashed.

Anil Kumar Kohari vs. UOI (2010) 39 DTR 19 (Gau.)

Assessee explain the loose slips pad found during survey, as wages paid earlier. High Court held that as there was no iota of evidence in the form of sale bills, bank account, money or property additions cannot be made.

CIT vs. Atma Valves (P) Ltd. (2010) 216 Taxation 241
(P & H)

Assessment made in pursuance of a notice under section 143(2) issued on 23rd March, 2000, when the return was filed on 27th March, 2000 is invalid.

DIT vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (2010) 40 DTR 17 (Del.)

The assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuant to the notice under section 143(2) though issued within the statutory period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed by the assessee, but served on the assessee beyond the limitation period of twelve months was held to be invalid and liable to be quashed.

Dy. CIT vs. Maxima Systems Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 49 (Guj.)

Non issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the assessee filed the return in response to notice under section 148 of the Income – tax Act, 1961 will vitiate the reassessment proceedings.

CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma (2010) 40 DTR 129 (All)

Where Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects in the books of account and explanation given by the assessee regarding non-maintenance of stock register has been accepted by the Tribunal while deleting addition made on account of fall in gross profit, the finding of facts cannot be disturbed.

CIT vs. JasbJack Elegance Exports (2010) 40 DTR 236 (Del.)

Books of account of the assessee could not be rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when no specific defect is pointed out in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee or the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.

CIT vs. Jacksons House (2010) 39 DTR 212 (Del.)

Liability to pay Excise Duty occurs only when two events takes place viz, the assessee manufactures excisable goods and the excisable goods are removed from the factory. Thus, excise duty is not includible in valuation of closing stock.

ACIT vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (2010) 39 DTR 120 (Guj.)

Where the assessee had reflected the interest income earned under the head ‘Other Income’ in the statement of account which was considered by the assessing officer while framing assessment under section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice issued by the assessing officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to reopen the assessment of the assessee after four years was quashed as there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material necessary for assessment.

Eagle Fashion (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 40 DTR 1 (Guj.)

With respect to the issues which were not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings the period of limitation for the purpose of revision under section 263 would commence from the date of the order of original assessment and not from the date on which the reassessment order has been passed.

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 39 DTR 113 (Bom.)

Where assessing officer disallowed a part of the marketing research and studies expenses incurred by the assessee in a particular year. Based on the finding of that year, the assessing officer reopened the assessment of earlier year which was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the expiry of four years. The Hon’ble High Court held that when in the notice it was not stated that there was any failure on the part of the assessee and the assessee during the course of the original assessment proceedings furnished details of the expenses to the assessing officer. The notice issued by the assessing officer issued under section 148 was liable to be quashed.

Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. (2010) 38 DTR 8 (Bom.)

Receipt of interest on tax refund and netting against section 220 interest was disclosed in the return and details were furnished in reply to query by assessing officer. No failure to disclose material facts. Reassessment proceedings on ground that part of income had escaped assessment not valid.

Arthur Anderson and Co. vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom.)

Editorial Note:- Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs. P. N. Prasad (2001) 252 ITR 673 (Bom.), distinguished.

Absence of new material vis-à-vis appreciation of existing record – Materials already in the knowledge of Assessing Officer – Reassessment is invalid.

Legato Systems (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 231 CTR 526 (Del.)

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 231 CTR 233 (Bom.)

Notice under section 153C, can be issued only where the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned actually belong to assessee. Notice issued on the basis of loose papers which bear the name of assessee actually not belong to assessee was without jurisdiction.

Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT (2010) 38 DTR 225 / 231 CTR 474 (Guj.)

While computing income of the assessee even in block assessment, the Assessing Officer must allow the claim of the assessee for the depreciation which is legally permitted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 961.

CIT vs. C. Sabira (Smt) (2010) 40 DTR 153 (Ker.)

Block assessment made by Assessing Officer who was holding the power of ACIT by virtue of an order of the CIT is valid and proper.

CIT vs. Narendra Narayan Banik (2010) 39 DTR 232 (Gau.)

The search action was concluded in the assessee’s case on 29/30.08.1996 and Panchnama was drawn on that date. Thereafter, on 18-11-1996 merely restraint order was revoked by the revenue authorities and Panchnama was drawn at the time of vacating the restraint order. On these fact it was held that limitation period of one year for framing block assessment started from 30-8-1996 and not from
18-11-1996, accordingly the assessment order passed on 28-11-1997 was held to be barred by limitation.

CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 293 (Del.)

Assessee by filing an appeal against the order of block assessment disputing the rate of tax payable on long term capital gains fails to comply with cl. (iv) of the first proviso to section 158BFA(2), and hence is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso regarding non levy of penalty.

CIT vs. Anju R. Innani (Smt.) (2010) 38 DTR 75 / 231 CTR 417 (Bom.)

Transaction between DD (Doordarshan and Advertising Agents) where Ad agent collects amounts from customers for advertisement on DD and retains 15% commission while remitting the balance amount to DD. Amounts to a transaction of Principal and Agent relationship and amount of 15% retained by the Ad agent is commission to which section 194H is attracted. Decisions in Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors’ Association (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj.); M.S. Hameed & Ors. vs. Director of State Lotteries 249 ITR 186 (Ker.) distinguished.

CIT vs. Prasar Bharati Doordarshan Kendra (2010) 189 Taxman 315 (Ker.)

Mere issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, provision of section 194LA was not attracted.

Infopark Kerala vs. ACIT (2010) 38 DTR 180 (Ker.)

Remittances made by the assessee to the non-resident for purchase of software were in the nature of trading receipt and price of goods purchased by it bear the character of income receipt in the hands of non-resident and therefore, assessee is liable to deduct tax at source under section 195(1).

CIT vs. Sonata Information Technology Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 350 (Kar.)

Certificate under section 195(3), could not be declined on the ground that the matter is pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel. As no appeal is available against order under section 195(3), writ is maintainable.

Mckinsey & Company Inc vs. UOI (2010) 38 DTR 34 / 323 ITR 544 / 231 CTR 430 (Bom.)

The obligation to deduct the tax at source arises only when the payment is chargeable under the provisions of the Income Tax. If the parties feel that either the deduction of tax at source by the payer is required to be at a lower rate or no deduction is required to be made they are required to file an application before the ITO. In case no such application is filed before ITO or such application is rejected, then the payer is duty bound to deduct tax as per the prescribed rates in force at the relevant time. The order of the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Act is tentative. In the assessment proceedings relating to the assessee when it is found that the assessee was required to deduct the tax at source , the assessee would not be permitted to argue that the amount paid to the recipient is not chargeable under the provisions of the Act and the assessee may be treated as in default. However, in case in the assessment proceedings relating to the recipient, it is ultimately held that the sum received by the recipient was not chargeable to tax, the effect of that would be that it was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax at source on the sum paid to the said non-resident and in that eventuality, the assessee will not be treated as in default.

Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 189 Taxman 232 / 36 DTR 425 (Delhi)

If conditions for grant of certificate under section 197 are duly fulfilled, it would be impermissible for Assessing Officer to reject application merely on a whim and caprice.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. ACIT (TDS) (2010) 190 Taxman 373 (Bom.)

Assessee applying for nil tax withholding certificate in respect of payments received for firm function services rendered to Indian branches. Orders passed under section 264 by Commissioner and Assessing Officer under section 197, specifying the rate of tax for other years. Assessing Officer without any valid reasons deviating from position adopted by Commissioner for earlier years. Court directed the assessing officer to issue the certificate.

Mckinsey and Company Inc. vs. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 367 (Bom.)

Where the assessing officer passed the assessment order completely ignoring the registration garneted by the DIT (E) under section 12 AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order so passed by the assessing officer was held to be without jurisdiction and the High Court also directed the Assessing Officer to stay recovery proceedings in pursuance of the said assessment order till the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority before whom the assessee’s appeal was pending.

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Dy. DIT (E) (2010) 40 DTR 76 (Guj)

MAT credit available under section 115JAA, represents tax paid by the assessee before determination of total income under section 143(1) or completion of regular assessment within the meaning of sub section (2) of section 234B and therefore credit for MAT under the provisions of section 115JAA has to be reckoned in computing interest payable under section 234B. Amendment made by Finance Act, 2006, by substituting Expln 1 to section 234B was clarificatory or curative in nature and consequently, even prior to the amendment, the credit under section 115JAA could not be ignored in determining the liability to pay interest under section 234B.

CIT vs. Apar Industries Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 128 / 323 ITR 411 / 231 CTR 313 (Bom.)

Interest under section 234B is not chargeable where the income of the assessee is subject to Tax deduction at source.

Director IT vs. Krupp Udge GmbH (2010) 38 DTR 251 (Bom.)

Interest under section 244A, is allowable on the refundable taxes arrived after giving credit of brought forward MAT under section 115JAA.

CIT vs. Apar Industries Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 128 (Bom.)

Dispute relating to the chargeability of income of the non-resident recipient can alone be the subject matter of an appeal under section 248 and not the possibility of assessing of the income of the non resident in the hands of the resident payer as no procedure of assessment of the income of the non-resident in the hands of the resident payer is contemplated in sub section 1 of section 195.

CIT vs. Sonata Information Technology Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 350 (Kar.)

Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal can consider grounds not raised before assessing officer.

Binny Ltd. vs. ACWT (2010) 324 ITR 34 (Mad.)

Second application for rectification is not maintainable.

S. Panneerselvam (Dr.) vs. ACIT (2010) Tax. L.R. 326 (Mad.)(Vol. 40 May 2010)

Tribunal passing order relying on its own decision in another case. Assessee filing application contending that no opportunity given to deal with decision which had not been cited by either side when arguments were heard. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The Court held that assessee to be given an opportunity to deal with distinguishable features of case relied on. Matter remanded to decide on merit.

Inventure Growth and Securities Ltd. vs. ITAT (2010) 324 ITR 319 (Bom.)

Refer: Naresh K. Pahuja vs. ITO (2009) 224 CTR 284 (Bom.)

Lakhani Mewalal Das vs. ITO (1972) 84 ITR 649 (Cal.)(659)

Vindhya Telelink Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2008) 15 DTR 238 (Jab.) (TM)

In view of alleged variation between the order pronounced by the Tribunal in the open Court on the conclusion of hearing on the sat application and the final order passed subsequently as regards the amount of deposit directed by the Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee expeditiously to obviate any further complications.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT (2010) 39 DTR 241 / 232 CTR 177 (Del.)

Order passed by the Tribunal by merely relying upon the decision without recording the finding and also the reasons as to how the decision was applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case was liable to be set aside as the order of the Tribunal was passed without application of judicial mind.

DIT (E) vs. Shia Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (2010) 40 DTR 31 (Guj.)

Tribunal is empower to deal with the issue of allowability of assessee’s claim of bad debts under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as business expenditure even though the same was not allowable as bad debts.

CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2010) 38 DTR 86 (Del)

The non consideration of a ground by itself could not be a reason for filing an appeal. The revenue could have approached the Tribunal pointing out the mistake in not considering the specific ground raised by the Revenue and obtained an order by rectification. Appeal was dismissed.

CIT vs. Malladi Project Management P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 87 (Mad.)

Where the Income-tax Department had not challenged the order of the CIT(A) for one of the assessment years thereby accepting the view of the CIT(A) in that year, then on principles of consistency it is not open for the Revenue authorities to challenge the same finding in respect of other years.

CIT vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 20 (P&H)

On appeal to High Court by the department, that the Tribunal failed to consider the ground taken in its ground of appeal regarding the treatment of current investments for its adjudication. But the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said appeal of the department. On the ground that since the department has other remedy open like rectification under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, it would be proper for the department to file Rectification Application before Tribunal to consider the said ground and not before the court under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Held, that the department is open to approach Tribunal and dismissed the said appeal.

CIT vs. Malladi Project Management P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 87 (Mad.)

If the revenue has not challenged the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1990-91 and thus accepted the view of the CIT(A), then on principles of consistency it is not open to the revenue to challenge the similar findings in respect of earlier year.

CIT vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 20 (P & H)

The assessing officer while passing assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act had not added back provision for non performing asset and investment and lease equalisation charges to the book profits of the assessee company under section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the assessing officer to add back the provision for non performing asset and investment and lease equalisation charges while computing book profits under section 115JA of the Act. On these facts the Hon’ble High Court held that the assessing officer had taken a possible view in computing the book profit of the assessee company under section 115JA of the Act as such the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directing the assessing officer to modify the assessment.

CIT vs. Shiva Texyarn Ltd (2010) 40 DTR 270 (Mad.)

Since an enquiry was specifically held with reference to which a disclosure of details was called for by the Assessing Officer and made by the assessee, the observation of the CIT that the Assessing Officer had arrived at his findings without conducting an enquiry was erroneous and therefore the CIT wrongly exercised the powers by recourse to section 263.

CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 61 (Bom.)

Where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the issue of applicability of section 40A(3), vis-à-vis block assessment and taken a possible view, the CIT is not justified in exercising powers of revision under section 263. Once the issue was considered and decided by the CIT(A) revision under section 263 cannot be done.

Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 38 DTR 293 (Bom.)

Where the assessee filed revision application against order of Assessing Officer rejecting application under section 197, the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that revision was not maintainable. Commissioner was directed to pass the order with in four weeks.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. ACIT (TDS) (2010) 190 Taxman 373 (Bom.)

Assessee claimed loss from share trading as business loss. During assessment proceedings, the assessee agreed for the same to be treated as speculative. Held no penalty can be imposed just because there was difference in opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer as to the head under which the loss should fall.

CIT vs. Aretic Investment (2010) 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi)

The assessee had claimed deduction on account of income tax paid and written off capital expenditure in the profit and loss account. The claim made by the assessee were not only incorrect in law but were also made with a mala fide intention as such, penalty was rightly levied by the assessing officer.

CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 249 (Del.)

Merely because the assessing officer had treated the business loss declared by the assessee as speculation loss by invoking provisions of explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 it cannot be held that the assessee has concealed income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT vs. Aretic Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 39 DTR 243 (Del.)

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is leviable where the assessee under the advice of the counsel filed his return of income claiming exemption under section 10(36) of the Act in respect profit on sale of shares.

CIT vs. Deepak Kumar (2010) 38 DTR 118 (P&H)

Where addition is made by the assessing officer merely by applying higher rate of net profit penalty for concealment of income under
section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was no leviable.

CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 38 DTR 345 (Chhattisgarh)

Bonafide claim for exemption based on advice of C.A. and affidavit of Counsel – Penalty not leviable.

CIT vs. Deepak Kumar (2010) 232 CTR 78 (P&H)

274. S. 271(1)(c) — Penalty – Concealment – Estimate

Penalty not leviable when income was estimated for addition.

CIT vs. Acro Traders (P.) Ltd. (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Del.)

Any disclosure made subsequent to seizure of incriminating material would not be treated as voluntary. Assessee applying for waiver must make out a case of genuine hardship.

Shardadevi P. Jhunjunwala vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 194 (Bom.)

Where department reopened assessment of assessee by sending notices through courier, since the department failed to produce the copy of acknowledgement in token of service of notices, it could be said that notices were not actually served and therefore, reassessment proceedings were to be quashed.

ACIT vs. Ashiana Automobiles (P) Ltd. (2010) 124 ITD 425 (Patna)

Urban land allotted for commercial purposes viz. industrial use. During period of construction urban land cannot be assessed to Wealth Tax.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) Tax L. R. 364 (Ker.)