Disposal of appeal by High Court by merely saying that case was not a fit case to be interfered with is not proper; High Court must discuss issues raised by parties and dispose of matter with a reasoned order

[2013] 30 taxmann.com 8 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

v.

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd.*

26-08-2011

STAY OF DEMAND

1.KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. B.R. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.(2001) 170 CTR (Bom) 415 : (2001) 251 ITR 158 (Bom) : (2001) 119 TAXMAN 974 (Bom)
2. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs. ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. (2009) 222 CTR (Del) 521 : (2010) 324 ITR 247 : (2009) 20 DTR 137
3.UTI Mutual Fund vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER and Ors.(2012) 249 CTR (Bom) 190 : (2012) 69 DTR (Bom) 306 : (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom) : (2012) 206 TAXMAN 341 (Bombay)
4.VALVOLINE CUMMINS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
& ORS.(2008) 217 CTR (Del) 292 : (2008) 307 ITR 103 : (2008) 171 TAXMAN 241 : (2008) 8 DTR 145
5.M/s Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1264/2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

Queens Educational Society- Decision of Uttrakhand High Court for Educational Institutions dissented

1. Pine Grove International Charitable Trust (P&H) 327 ITR 73
2. Vanita Vishram Trust (Bom) 327 ITR 121
3. Maa Saraswati Trust (HP) 194 Taxmann 84
4.St. Lawrence Educational Society (Delhi HC) 197 Taxmann 504

Scope and Powers of CIT u/s 12A/12AA-Decisions favoring Assessee

1. Saint Kabir Educational Trust (Asr Tribunal) 41 DTR 0267

2. Dream Land Educational Trust (ITAT Amritsar) 109 TTJ 850

3. DN Memorial Trust ITA 618/ASR/2011 

4. Surya Educational Trust P&H HC 15 Taxmann.com 123

5. Spring Dale Education Society P&H HC 16 Taxmann.com 285

6. Tishir Shiksha Prasar Samiti 21 Taxmann.com 525

7. Gagan Education Society 145 TTJ 230

8. Divine Health Services ITAT Amritsar ITA 417/2010

Where assessee, a shareholder of KMPL, alongwith other shareholders sold entire shares of KMPL to 'R', it could not be regarded as an indirect transfer of flats owned by KMPL to 'R' and, consequently, provisions of section 50C could not be applied to transaction of sale of shares

[2013] 29 taxmann.com 424 (Mumbai - Trib.)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'I'

Irfan Abdul Kader Fazlani

An ad interim stay was granted in respect of demand raised in pursuance of Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, dated 1-1-2013

[2013] 29 taxmann.com 427 (Andhra Pradesh)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Ultratech Cement Ltd.

v.

Union of India*

“For effective and co-ordinate investigation” Income Tax cases can be transferred

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16883 of 2012  SHREE RAM VESSEL SCRAP PVT LTD Date : 23/01/2013

S. 163 " From or through" vs "through"

The foreign company was in receipt of some income from the assessee, on account of sale of shares. The Act uses the words “from or through”, instead of the word ‘thorough’ in s.163(1)(c). Any person in India from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income directly or indirectly can be treated as agent of the non-resident.
Utkal Investments Ltd. v Asst. DIT (2009) 120 TTJ 67 /123 TTJ 286 (Mum).

Additional Evidence which goes to the root of the matter has to be considered

Tribunal confirming, the order of CIT(A) without considering the additional evidence, which was crucial. The High court held that the additional evidence goes very root of the matter and a reasonable approach is needed and not the hyper technical approach adopted by the tribunal hence the matter remanded to the Tribunal.
Daljieet Kaur v ITO (2009) 212 Taxation 46 (MP).

Other Supporting Case laws favouring Assessee:
Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom)
Orissa High Court in B. L. Choudhury v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 371

Addition made for understatement of Sale on basis of rate of sale to co-operative which was only 5% of total sales

Additions made for under statement of sales, by comparing sale prices of sales made to cooperative
societies, which was merely 5% of total sales, with that of sales to other individuals, on inference that they were at a lower price, without bringing any material on record or examining the individuals was held to be unjustified, and additions made on account of suppressed sales was deleted.
ITO vs. Rabindranath Seal (2009) 180 Taxman 104 (Kolkatta) (A.Y. 2001-02)

Once an order of refund of sales tax has been passed, the same has to be treated as income notwithstanding pendency of appeal against refund order

CIT v Beirsdorf (India) Ltd. & Anr (2009) 28 DTR 188 (Bom) / (2009) 183 Taxman 178 (Bom).

Accrued interest which was receivable by the assessee only after the end of the previous year cannot be assessed to tax in the current year even though the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting.

CIT vs. FAL Industries Ltd. (2009) 17 DTR 308 (Mad)

Fall in Sale without showing any material to show sale outside the books does not warrant rejection of books

Asstt CIT v Ravi Agricultural Industries (2009) 121 TTJ (Agra) (TM) 903. (2009 ) 117 ITD
338 (AGRA) (TM).

Valuation of stock at 10% of cost held justified which was sold at 8.43% of cost

Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 18 DTR 190 / (2009) 221 CTR 767 (Raj)

Assessee has option to follow different methods of accounting for different sources of income under Business Income

ACIT vs. Mehul J. Somaiya, ITA No. 7118/Mum/2007, Bench – B, A.Y. 2002–03, dt. 10-
12-2008 – BCAJ p. 670, Vol. 40-B, Part 5, February 2009

Promoter holding shares with sole motive of retaining the control can not be recognized as stock in trade

ACIT vs. Pal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 1994/Mum/2005, Bench – ‘H’, A.Y. 01–02,
dt. 20-10-2008 – BCAJ p. 518, Vol. 40-B, Part 4, January 2009

For genuine difficulties for changing method of accounting from merchantile to cash for interest income- Change is genuine

Asst. CIT v. Coromandal Investment (P) Ltd. [(2009) 225 CTR 313 (Guj)]

If some deficiencies are found in books of accounts some guess work has to be applied by AO

National Plastics Inds. vs. ITO (2009) 309 ITR 191 (Bom)

INSTITUTIONAL TAX NOTIFICATION QUASHED BY PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a February 2, 2011, notification of the Punjab Government for levying institution tax. A Division Bench held the notification was violative of the Constitution of India.