Supreme Court in Phoolchand Bajranglal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456/69 Taxman 627 - "One of the purposes of Section 147 appears to us to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn round and say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing."

Determination of Point and Place of Sale in case of Motor Vehicle

[(Tata Engineering and Locomotive (1970) 1 SCC 622] and KTC Automobile 54 PHT 1 (SC)

Manufacturer to Dealer Delivery Order is addressed by Sale office to Stock Yard in incharge

1.     Delivery of motor vehicle from stock yards of automobile manufacturer prior to the issue of allocation letter to the dealer is not appropriation to the contract of sale

2.     It  is when the stock yard incharge  appropriates the requisite number of vehicles to contract of sale out of available stock  by putting down the engine and chasis number in delivery challan, that the goods are appropriated. Till such appropriation it is always open  to the company to allot any vehicle to any dealer or to transfer the vehicle from the stock yard in one state to a stock yard in another state

3.     Dealer is exempted from requirement of registration even though he is in possession o motor vehicle, if he obtains a trade certificate from registering authority of the area. In the trade certificate only class of motor vehicle is mentioned and not the specific particulars of vehicle such as engine number or chasis number. It is permissible for dealer to use motor vehicle covered by trade certificate to use a vehicle for test, repair etc. including proceeding to and from the place of registration.

4.     If the motor vehicle duly covered by insurance and trade certificate of the dealer gets destroyed  during transit from manufacturer to consumer, the liability to pay compensation falls on insurer of buyer who had issued the cover note for insurance [Bombay High Court in Clancy Arcanjia Dias]

Dealer to Customer

1.   Clearly, mere mentioning of engine number and chassis number of motor vehicle in the invoice of sale does not entitle the intending purchaser to appropriate all the goods i.e. the motor vehicle till its possession is or can be lawfully handed over to him by the dealer without violating the statutory provisions governing the motor vehicles.

2.    Such transfer of possession can take place only when the vehicle reaches the place where the registering authority will be obliged to inspect for the purpose of finding out whether it is roadworthy and register- able motor vehicle and whether its identification marks tally with those given in the sale invoice and Application for registration. The possession can lawfully be handed over to the purchaser at this juncture because law requires the purchaser as an ‘’owner “ to make application registration but at the same time the law prohibits the use of motor vehicle by the owner until it is duly registered by the Registering Authority. Hence, in order to satisfy the requirements of law noticed above, the dealer can deliver the possession and owner can take the possession and present the vehicle for registration only when it reaches the office of Registering Authority

3.   With the handing over of  the possession of a specific motor vehicle just prior to registration, the dealer completes the agreement of sale rendering it a perfected sale. The purchaser as an ‘’ owner’’ under the Motor Vehicles Act is thereafter obliged to obtain certificate of registration which alone entitles him to enjoy the possession of the vehicle in practical terms by enjoying the right to use the vehicle at public places, after meeting the other statutory obligations of the insurance etc. 

4.   Hence, technically though the registration of motor vehicle is a post- sale event, the event of sale is closely linked in time with the event of registration.

5.    Neither the manufacture nor the dealer of a motor vehicle can permit the intended purchaser having an agreement of sale to use the motor vehicle even for taking to it to the registration office in the purview of statutory provisions already noticed. Hence the lawful possession with the right of use is permissible to be given to the intended owner only after reaching the vehicle to the office of registering Authority. Thus seen , in practical terms though sale preceeds the event of registration, in normal circumstances and as the law stands, it is co-terminus with the registration of new motor vehicle.

6.   Article 286(2) of the constitution empowers the parliament to formulate by making law, the principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods take place in the context of clause (1). As per section 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, in the case of specific or ascertained goods the sale or purchase is deemed to having taking place inside the state where the goods happened to be at the time of making the contract of sale. However, in the case of unascertained or future goods, the sale or purchase shall be deemed to be taken place in the State where the goods happened to be at the time of their appropriation by the seller or buyer, as the case may be.

7.   There can be no difficulty in holding that motor vehicle remains in the category unascertained or future goods till its appropriation to the contract of sale is occasioned by handing over its possession at or near the office of registration authority in deliverable or registrable state.

Hence from manufacturer to dealer, sale takes place when motor vehicle’s engine and chasis number is mentioned on the delivery challan and in case of dealer to consumer sale takes place at or near the ofiice of registration authority where goods in deliverable and registrable state are handed over by dealer to consumer.

On the basis of above legal position, it was held in KTC Automobile(supra) that sale takes place in the  state where registration, temporary or permanent,  of vehicle is done and not from where the vehicles are released.

Supreme Court in Kathiroor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.[August 27, 2013.] on Scope of 133(6)

The appellant-assessee is a Service Co-operative Rural Bank. The Income Tax Officer to the assessee under Section 133(6) of the Act calling for general information regarding details of all persons (whether resident or non-resident) who have made (a) cash transactions (remittance, transfer, etc.) of Rs. 1,00,000/- and above in any account and/or (b) time deposits (FDs, RDs, TDs, etc.) of Rs. 1,00,000/- or above for the period of three years between 01.04.2005 and 31.03.2008, dated 02.02.2009. It was expressly stated therein that failure to furnish the aforesaid information would attract penal consequences. The assessee objected to the said notice on grounds, inter alia, that such notice seeking for information which is unrelated to any existing or pending proceeding against the assessee could not be issued under the provisions of the Act and requested for withdrawal of the said notice Section 133 provides for the power of authorities under the Act to call for information for the purposes prescribed therein. Sub Section (6) of Section 133 of the Act, as it stood originally, had provided for calling for information in relation to such points or matters which would be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under the Act from any person including a banking company or any officer thereof. It was settled law that unless a proceeding is pending, the powers under Section 133(6) could not be exercised by the Assessing Authorities. In such circumstances, an amendment was made by the Finance Act, 1995 (Act 22 of 1995), with effect from 01.07.1995, inserting the words “enquiry or” before “proceeding” in Section 133(6) and the second proviso to the said provision The addition of the word “enquiry” expanded the ambit of exercise of powers by the authorities under Section 133(6) to seek for information which would be useful for or relevant to any enquiry besides proceeding under the Act. The second proviso to Section 133(6), specified that the power in respect of an enquiry, in case where no proceeding is pending, shall not be exercised by any income tax authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner without the prior approval of the said authorities. The effect of the amendments made by the Finance Act (Act 22 of 1995) was explained by the CBDT in the Circular No. 717, dated 14th Aug., 1995 (See Taxmann ’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 4, 2002 Ed., p. 2.1759, 2.1782) as follows : At present the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 133 empower income-tax authorities to call for information which is useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act which means that these provisions can be invoked only in cases where the proceedings are pending and not otherwise. This acts as a limitation or a restraint on the capability of the Department to tackle evasion effectively. It is, therefore, thought necessary to have the power to gather information which after proper enquiry, will result in initiation of proceedings under the Act. 41.3 With a view to having a clear legal sanction, the existing provisions to call for information have been amended. Now the income-tax authorities have been empowered to requisition information which will be useful for or relevant to any enquiry or proceedings under the Income-tax Act in the case of any person. The Assessing Officer would, however, continue to have the power to requisition information in specific cases in respect of which any proceeding is pending as at present. However, an income-tax authority below the rank of Director or Commissioner can exercise this power in respect of an inquiry in a case where no proceeding is pending, only with the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner. Since the language of the Section 133(6) is wholly unambiguous and clear, reliance on interpretation of statutes would not be necessary. Before the introduction of amendment to Section 133(6) in 1995, the Act only provided for issuance of notice in case of pending proceedings. As a consequence of the said amendment, the scope of Section 133(6) was expanded to include issuance of notice for the purposes of enquiry. The object of the amendment of section 133(6) by the Finance Act, 1995 (Act 22 of 1995) as explained by the CBDT in its circular shows that the legislative intention was to give wide powers to the officers, of course with the permission of the CIT or the Director of Investigation to gather general particulars in the nature of survey and store those details in the computer so that the data so collected can be made use of for checking evasion of tax effectively. The assessing authorities are now empowered to issue such notice calling for general information for the purposes of any enquiry in both cases: (a) where a proceeding is pending and (b) where proceeding is not pending against the assessee. However in the latter case, the assessing authority must obtain the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner, as the case maybe before issuance of such notice. The word “enquiry” would thus connote a request for information or questions to gather information either before the initiation of proceedings or during the pendency of proceedings; such information being useful for or relevant to the proceeding under the Act

The issue of deductibility of Subsidies as profits derived from undertaking stands resolved by Supreme Court in its Landmark Judgment in Meghalya Steels on 09-03-2016

Exemption available under Chapter VI-A in respect of profits of industrial undertakings is available only in respect of income qualifying the litmus test of “profits or gain derived from undertaking”. The revenue and assessees have been locking their horns over the issue of Subsidies for years together as to whether or not they are covered by term ““profits or gain derived from undertaking”

                             In this article while an attempt has been made to construe real meaning of words “profit derived from”, it also deals with purpose test of subsidy and its relevance after recent amendments in Finance Act 2015 and Finance Bill 2016.

Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Allhabad High Court in Society for The Promotion of Education Adventure Sports on 16-02-2016 allowing deemed registration of trust after six months where registration not granted in six months. Earlier Allahabad High Court full bench in Muzafarnagar Development Authority on 05-02-2015 had reversed division bench decision in Society for The Promotion of Education Adventure Sports which now stands restored back . Earlier CBDT vide Instruction dated 06-11-2015 had also directed to follow the time limit of six months strictly.

SLP granted against order of High Court wherein it was held that since dominant objective of ICAI was to regulate profession of Chartered Accountancy in India, it was a charitable institution and conduction of coaching classes and campus placements for a fee by it could not be held to be business, trade or commerce Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[2016] 65 taxmann.com 63 (SC) MAY 1, 2015

Misapproprition of money by power of attorney holder who had authority to operate bank account of assessee in money lending business is incidental to carrying on of business.Hence deductible in computing profits of business Badridas Daga (SC) 25.04.1958

Voice recorded CDs are documents under evidence Act Held by SC in Shamsher Singh Verma CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9151 of 2015)24-11-2015

“………..11. Word “document” is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as under: - “ ‘Document’ means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter

Division Bench of Supreme Court splits on the issue of simultaneous deduction u/s 80IB rws 80IA(9) and 80HHC. Where assessee is carrying export business as well as domestic business and is eligible for deduction both u/s 80HHC as well as 80IB, the issue is whether amount of eligible deduction computed u/s 80IB rws 80IA(9) shall be deducted in computing profits of business u/s 80HHC. An example will make position clear. Supposing an assessee has gross total income of Rs. 1,000/- and is entitled to deduction under Sections 80IA and 80HHC and the deduction under Section 80IA is Rs. 300/-, then the department says that gross total income of which deduction under Section 80HHC is to be computed would be Rs. 700/-, and not Rs. 1,000/-. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that the gross total income would not undergo a change or reduction for the purpose of Section 80HHC [Extracted from Para 15 and 16 of Judgment. The issue has arisen due to language of section 80IA(9). Which reads as “ Where any amount of profits and gains of an (undertaking) or of an enterprise in the case of an Assessee is claimed and allowed under this Section for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such eligible business of (undertaking) or enterprise, as the case may beSection 80-IA(9) consists of three parts. The second part of section 80-IA(9) provided that the deduction to the extent of profits allowed under section 80-IA(1) shall not be allowed under any other provisions. It obviously means that the deductions that are allowable under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A would be allowed to the extent of profits as reduced by the profits allowed under section 80-IA(1). The second part of section 80-IA(9) does not even remotely refer to the method of computing deduction under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A. Thus, section 80-IA(9) seeks to curtail allowance of deduction and not computability of deduction under any other provisions under heading C of Chatper VI-A of the Act. Matter now referred to larger bench Micro Labs Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 199 (SC) DECEMBER 10, 2015

Supreme Court on technological advancements in Oracle Software India Ltd. 320 ITR 546(SC) “………Technological advancement in computer science makes knowledge as of today obsolete tomorrow. We need to move with the times.[Para 7]………………………….. “…………..The Department needs to take into account the ground realities of the business and sometimes over-simplified tests create confusion, particularly, in modern times when technology grows each day[Para 11]…………………..”

SC in Zuari Estate Development & Investment Company Limited has held that intimation u/s 143(1) is not assessment and hence while issuing notice u/s 148 there is no change of opinion and hence notice is valid. Bombay High Court Judgement is set aside and matter restored to ITAT to decide on merits. Comments : In this case the notice u/s 148 was issued for not reflecting capital gain u/s 2(47)(v) rws 53A of Transfer of Property Act in respect of an agreement entered in 1984 by which property was stipulated to be transferred in 1991 only. However section 2(47)(v) has come into operation w.e.f. AY 1988-89 only and high court had held in para 18 of its judgement that “ no prudent or reasonable person, reasonably instructed in law, could have come to the conclusion that an agreement as contemplated by section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had been entered into for the assessment year 1991-92” and that mere exchange of letters is not agreement u/s 53A. SC has not considered this part of the judgement. How shall now ITAT decide the issue ?

SC decision on 05-11-2015 on 36(1)(iii) in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. The apex court observed that interest free advance to sister concern under margin money stipulation by bank for granting of loan to sister concern qualifies the test of commercial expediency. Further loan to director from bank account out of credit balance available on the day of advance can not be said to be advance from borrowed capital. Hence no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii). Further SC reprimanded P&H High Court for disallowance by mentioning Abhishek Industries only without mentioning facts of the case. SC followed its own judgement in SA Builders 288ITR1 for test of commercial expediency and includes expenditure incurred otherwise than by legal obligation. SC also quoted Malyalam Plantation 53 ITR 140 which held that “for the purpose of business” is wider than “for the purpose of earning profits” SC further quoted Delhi High Court in Dalmia Cement 254 ITR 377 which held that for the purpose of business need not necessarily mean the business of assesee itself. SC also held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman.

Recovery—Garnishee proceedings—In order to institute garnishee proceedings there should be a subsisting relationship between the garnishee and the assessee of which the ITO gets information and which could reasonably lead to recovery of arrears—Where the garnishee, in response to garnishee order dt. 18th June, 1959, replied that there was no subsisting contract with the assessee, later on entered into contract with the assessee in March, 1960, and made payment of Rs. 20,000 to the assessee and again on second garnishee notice dt. 27th March, 1961, nothing was due from garnishee to the assessee, the ITO was not justified in demanding the payment of Rs. 20,000 on the ground that the same was made in contravention of earlier order dt. 18th June, 1959-BUDHA PICTURES(Supreme Court)(1967) 65 ITR 0620

Retrospective Amendment of law not operative on date of order u/s 263 or issue of notice u/s 148

ž  If retrospective amendment of law was not enforceable on the day, CIT exercised its powers u/s 263, order u/s 263 is bad in law[Supreme Court in Max India [295 ITR 282]]. In this case amendment in section 80HHC was brought retrospectively on the definition of profit in FA 2005 while order u/s 263 was passed 5-03-1997

ž  Similarly notice u/s 148 can also not be issued , held by Bombay HC in Rallis India [Para 18] 190 taxman 1. In this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 16-07-2008 and Finance Act 2009 amended the law on S.115JB requiring increase in book profits by provision on diminution in  value of assets w.e.f. 1-4-2001.[Consequent to SC Order in HCL Comet  292 ITR 299 that  provision for bad debts can not be equated with  amount set aside for meeting liabilities] 

SLP admitted by supreme court against order of Karnatka High Court in Islamic Academy of Education[2015] 54 taxmann.com 255 (Karnataka) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 where in it was held that where trust is genuine and activities are being carried out in accordance with objects, registration of the Trust can not be cancelled on the ground that funds are being misappropriated or that accounts are being falsified although exemption u/s 11 may be denied- Islamic Academy of Education [2015] 62 taxmann.com 218 (SC)

Where the assessee has been assessed at higher amount under sales tax law and demand has been raised against the assessee, notwithstanding that the assessee has not made any entry for liability in his books of accounts and has gone into appeal before higher authorities, the deduction in respect of sales tax demand shall be allowed- Kedar Nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363(SC)

Foreign collaborator granted license to assessee to use its patents and designs—Assessee not acquiring capital asset—Amount paid to collaborator was only licence fee and constituted revenue expenditure-I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD. 232 ITR 316

It is not a universally true proposition that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee must necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to the payer. Therefore, the decision in CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills (1965) 57 ITR 36 (SC) wherein it was held that the sale of loom hours was in the nature of capital receipt and hence, not taxable, cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that payment made by an assessee for purchase of loom hours would be capital expenditure[Para 4]-Empire Jute Co. Ltd 124 ITR 1

Test of Enduring benefit is not certain or conclusive test. What is important is not that advantage lasts forever but whether the expense incurred does away with a recurring expense(s) defrayed towards running a business as against an expense undertaken for the benefit of the business as a whole. In other words, the expenditure which is incurred, which enables the profit-making structure to work more efficiently leaving the source of the profit-making structure untouched, would be an expense in the nature of revenue expenditure. Fine tuning business operations to enable the management to run its business effectively, efficiently and profitably, leaving the fixed assets untouched would be an expenditure in the nature of revenue expenditure even though the advantage may last for an indefinite period. Test of enduring benefit or advantage would thus collapse in such like cases. It would be only truer in cases which deal with technology and software application, which do not in any manner supplant the source of income or add to the fixed capital of the assessee-Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. 203 Taxman 277 (Del.)

Issue of parking fee of aircrafts settled by supreme court in Japan Airlines. Earlier Delhi High Court in Japan Airlines and United Airlines said that S. 194I is applicable while Madras High Court in case of Singapur Airlines said that S. 194I is not applicable. Apex Court, however differed in its opinion both from Madras High Court which said that since the “'any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' have to be read ejusdem generis and it should take it colour from the earlier portion of the definition namely “lease, sub-lease and tenancy” and therefore limited meaning should be given to the words “ any other agreement or arrangement”. Also decision of Delhi High Court was dissented as it did not look into substance of the transaction as the fee was being paid for other facilities and use of land was incidental, Apex Court held that 194I is not applicable. Decision pronounced on 04-08-2014