INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

business income from a partnership firm and other income. A search came to be conducted on various premises of H.N. Safal Group on 04.09.2013. A panchnama came to be prepared on 07.09.2013. On the basis of the seized material, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 153C of the Act, 1961 by issuing a notice dated

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

reassess’ the escaped income of an assessee. That the term ‘escaped assessment’ includes both “non- assessment” as well as “under assessment.” 4.8 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants on service of notice is concerned, it is submitted that the principal place of business

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

business, the investments made in tax free bonds and in shares would therefore be in nature of stock in trade. The ITAT then noticed that assessee bank is having surplus funds and reserves from which investments can be made. Accordingly, it accepted the assessee’s case that investments were not made out of interest or cost bearing funds alone

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which   are   the   subject­matter   of   any   appeal,   reference   or revision,   which   is   chargeable   to   tax   and   has   escaped assessment. 10 11 Explanation   1.—Production   before   the   Assessing   Officer   of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could,   with   due   diligence,   have   been   discovered   by   the Assessing   Officer   will

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

business premises of a company of which he was the Managing Director. Two bank lockers in the name of Babulal and his brother Girdharilal in the Andhra Bank were also searched. These search operation were carried on from March 23, 1990 to March 26, 1990. Case, Jewellery, diamond ornaments, silver coins and ingots were found and seized. Statement of Babulal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

business of providing services or facilities in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils, had the option to compute their income on presumptive basis under Section 44BB of the Act; however, for A.Y. 2014-15, the respondents opted out of the option to compute their income on presumptive basis and declared a total loss of Rs.120

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

business or profession, the date of the expiry of four months from the end of the previous year or where there is more than one previous year, from the end of the previous year which expired last before the commencement of the assessment year or the 30th day of June of the assessment year, whichever is later

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

The appeal is dismissed without costs

business expenditure during the earlier year, the deeming provision in Section 41(1) of the Act comes into play and it is not necessary that the Revenue should await the verdict of higher Court or Tribunal. If the Court or Tribunal upholds the levy at a later date, the assessee will not be without remedy to get back the relief

CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. M/S. KESARIA TEA CO. LTD

business of tea, spices etc. During the assessment year 1985-86 (previous year ending on 31.3.1985) the assessee ’wrote-back’ in its accounts a sum of Rs.14,65,997/- representing the provision made during earlier years (1978-1981) towards its purchase tax liability. It appears that the liability to pay purchase tax on certain goods was in dispute and, therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

business of development and export of computer softwares and human resource services. It is also relevant to mention here that the Respondent-Company is also eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act. (b) On 25.10.2001, the Respondent filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2001-02 declaring a loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

business (of accommodation entries provided by Shri Shirish Shah) through bogus companies. This was based on the fact that many companies which invested amounts towards share capital on high premiums -in the assessee’s company were also controlled and managed by Shri Shirish Shah. The AO, on a consideration of these and other materials, was of opinion that the assessee

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

business or profession” or under the head “Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

income of the assessee of the previous year in which the sum is so paid.” FINDINGS: 10. What is a provision? This is the question which needs to be answered. A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

business or some fund from any other unaccounted source came later on. That is the angle of the investigative process underway in which fund trail of the money paid by the petitioner is being investigated” 8. The High Court found that none of the reasons to believe to issue authorization met the requirement of Section

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

business. This was followed by this Court again in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar. These two decisions are of no help to the Revenue in the present case. Indeed, in a sense they are against it. The Income-tax Act contains an express provision for assessing a dissolved firm. Indeed, but for that provision no assessment

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

business cannot be run or either not debited at all or have been suppressed considerably. Depreciation of assets such as furniture, fixtures, car, scooter etc. has also been claimed at half the rate while have been with the assessee through out the year. The lower claim of depreciation prejudices the revenues case for the subsequent years also.” It was concluded

M/S. SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh, a search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 08/09.04.2010 at the residential/business premises of Sh. Tejwant Singh & Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti Group of cases, Karnal, Panipat & Delhi and a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 was also carried out at the business premises of M/s Super Mall

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

business on receiving approval from the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter “RBI” for short) vide Circular dated 19.02.1994. Thus, the appellant derives its income, inter alia, from banking activities as well as from leasing transactions. 2.1. The appellant filed its income tax returns for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1999-2000 and assessment orders were passed up to assessment