2009 TMI - 33754 - HC
  	A. Gasper Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal
  	
Transfer / extinguishment of leasehold / tenancy rights Section 45(1) of the Act is wholly silent as to the person from whom the consideration money for transferring a capital asset is to be received by the assessee. Moreover, it, inter alia, provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head " Capital gains ". Transfering the right of the assessee in the monthly tenancy under the landlords or his leasehold interest was extinguished and, therefore, it does not matter in the least that the aforesaid amount was not received from the landlords for the extinguishment of his aforesaid rights in the aforesaid capital asset, for, as already stated, s. 45(1) of the Act does not say from whom the consideration money is to be received for transfer of a capital asset and, further, s. 2(47) of the Act says that the word "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes "the extinguishment of any rights therein"

2 	2009 TMI - 33747 - HC
  	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus R.K. CONSTRUCTION CO.
  	
Order which is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue - Assessing Officer has taken a particular view on the basis of evidence produced before him. On the basis of the said material and materials which were collected by the CIT in revisional proceedings, the Commissioner has taken a different view – since there is nothing on record to suggest that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable at law, in the revisional proceedings under Section 263, it is not open for the Commissioner to take such a different view - Commissioner's order u/s 263 is liable to be quashed and set aside
 
3 	2009 TMI - 33746 - SC
  	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIRMOUR TRUCK OPERATORS UNION (No.1)
  	
M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with the respondent - Respondent assessee is a society - Its members consist of truck operators -The question which arose before the HC was whether assessee was liable or not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C - In our view, the afore-stated question is a substantial question of law - HC ought to have decided the said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeals summarily - matter remitted to the High Court
 
4 	2009 TMI - 33745 - SC
  	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.
  	
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.1,16,89,327/- incurred as 'Issue Management Expenses' - Reading the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, we find that the assessee has succeeded only on the basis of 'Rule of Consistency'. In our view, the High Court should have examined the nature of the said expenses - In our view, substantial question of law did arise for determination - Consequently, the impugned judgment of the HC is set aside and the matter is remitted to HC
 
5 	2009 TMI - 33744 - HC
  	City Montessori School (Regd.) Versus The Union of India & 2 others
  	
Exemption u/s 10 (23C) - application for grant of approval of the prescribed authority u/s 10(23C)(vi) rejected by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – petitioner assessee is a charitable institution which is engaged wholly for the purposes of education, especially when no material has been brought to prove that there was any element of personal profit - deposits/investments of surplus is permissible as per the proviso of Section 10(23C). Hence, assessee is entitled for the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) - impugned order is quashed
 
6 	2009 TMI - 33707 - HC
  	Hiten Rashmikant Mehta and another Versus Union of India and others
  	
Petition challenging the order passed by the appropriate authority u/s 269UD(1) and the constitutional validity of rule 48L of ITR, 1962 - irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were put in possession of the flat in question after October 1, 1986, in view of the fact that the petitioners acquired a right in respect of the flat prior to October 1, 1986, the transaction would be clearly covered by the provisions of Chapter XX-A and not XX-C - Without furnishing the particulars of the sale instances set out in the SCN, the appropriate authority could not have passed the impugned order in breach of the principles of natural justice – authority has not given any reasons as to why the sale instance relied upon by the petitioners is not comparable - impugned order cannot be sustained - However rule 48L prescribing time limit for filing statement in Form no. 37I is in conformity and consistent with the provisions of the Act - petition succeeds
 
7 	2009 TMI - 33706 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Narinder Mohan Foundation
  	
Charitable trust – exclusion from exemption - prohibited category of persons mentioned in section 13(3) have substantial interest in MMBL in which the funds of the assessee were invested and, therefore, the provisions of section 13(2)(h) were applicable – assessee-trust was not entitled to exemption on dividend income as stipulated under sections 11 and 12 - Tribunal was right in law in holding that shares being bonus shares of MMBL received by the assessee did not represent funds of the trust invested in the said concern for purposes of section 13(4)
 
8 	2009 TMI - 33705 - HC
  	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Sree Janardhana Mills
  	
Scheme to help revive sick companies - Both the CIT (A) and the ITAT placing reliance on Circular No. 523, dated October 5, 1988, found that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of carry forward loss of the earlier years – circulars in the nature of concession can be withdrawn prospectively only - In the subsequent Circular no. 683 dated June 8, 1994, the CBDT had only laid a new procedure for extension of benefit - Such a procedure could always be prospective operation only – assessee is entitled to benefit under earlier scheme – revenue appeal dismissed
 
9 	2009 TMI - 33704 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Satish kumar Chandna
  	
Tribunal accepted the contention of assessee that a reference to a Departmental Valuation Officer could be made only for the purpose of section 55A and section 269 and, therefore, the reference was invalid - Revenue has drawn our attention to section 142A which came on the statute with retrospective effect only after the order was passed by the Tribunal- held that incorporation of section 142A is an issue that ought to be considered by the Tribunal – matter remitted – however, income disclosed by assessee in return for assessment years, should not be included in block assessment
 
10 	2009 TMI - 33703 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Anil Kumar Bishnoi (and others references)
  	
Investment allowance under section 32A - hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim investment allowance on the dewatering equipment used in the construction work - Tribunal is not correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A
 
11 	2009 TMI - 33702 - HC
  	Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax
  	
Assessee decided to expand its activities and, therefore, undertook a fuel injection equipment project for which assessee incurred an expenditure towards acquisition of plant and machinery - control over the two units is in the hands of the same management and administration - There can be no dispute that new venture was managed from common funds - it can be said that the fuel injection equipment project is only an extension of the existing business and, therefore, the expenditure incurred on this project is a revenue expenditure
 
12 	2009 TMI - 33701 - HC
  	Regional Computer Centre Versus Commissioner of Income-tax
  	
Assessee, computer centre manned by the Government officers - providing consultancy, taking of projects and imparting training programme with the object of promoting computer/science - Claim of exemption u/s 11 as “charitable institution” and 10(22) as “educational institute” – assessee is earning income mainly thorough consultancy services and business is not carried by beneficiaries - Simply because the users of the services rendered were colleges, universities, Government departments and organizations, etc., would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the assessee was an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes – exemption not granted u/s 10(22) and u/s 11
 
13 	2009 TMI - 33700 - HC
  	A. S. Chhachhi Versus Commissioner of Income-tax
  	
Computing taxable capital gain –assessee claim that first deductions u/s 48 are to be made and then the provisions of sections 53 and 54 are to be applied – assessee claim that deduction u/s 48(2) should be first allowed and then cost of new residential flat and the bonds should be deducted – AO however first deducted the amount of investment made by assessee in purchase of the flat and bonds – Commissioner is justified in accepting assessee’s claim – held that deduction u/s 48(2) to be allowed on amount calculated u/s 48(1)(a) before giving deduction u/s 53 and 54
 
14 	2009 TMI - 33699 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Balaji Hotels and Enterprises Ltd.
  	
Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings - assessee produces printed paper labels which is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity - both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have given a concurrent finding that the assessee produces new, distinct and different commercial product and hence they were right in holding that the process of printing activity will amount to manufacture in order to quantify for the benefit under section 80-IA
 
15 	2009 TMI - 33698 - HC
  	Sangeeta Exports P. Ltd. and others Versus Union of India and others
  	
Petition against impugned order of Chief CIT rejecting the petition filed for compounding of offence u/s 276C(1)/277 - prosecution has successfully established that there was an act of concealment on the part of the petitioner and had filed its return by concealing facts - it is a clear case of of tax evasion - Contention of petitioner that Chief CIT alone has power to compound an offence and CBDT only had the authority to issue general directions with regard to composition of offences, is rejected – held that Commissioner has to exercise the discretion in conformity with instructions of CBDT - present petition is, hereby, dismissed.
 
16 	2009 TMI - 33697 - HC
  	Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax
  	
Cessation of liability - Explanation inserted in section 41(1) w.e.f. April 1, 1997 - Inspecting Assistant Commissioner added back the amount to the income of the assessee which were written back in assessee’s accounts as unclaimed balances - held that these amounts, are not statutory liabilities but contractual liabilities – these amounts were unilaterally written off by the assessee - Contention of assessee that prior to April 1, 1997, a unilateral writing off of a liability could not be treated as an income of the assessee, not acceptable – held that unclaimed liability written off by assessee was taxable as income
 
17 	2009 TMI - 33696 - HC
  	Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and others
  	
Whether the company was entitled to claim deduction as business expenses in respect of conditional donations made to an engineering college to secure admissions to the children of the employees of the assessee-company - appellant have failed to satisfy that the amount donated by them was towards staff welfare expenditure and, therefore, in furtherance of its business interest - question of law raised in this appeal is answered by us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue
 
18 	2009 TMI - 33691 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus P. S. Mani
  	
Search and seizure - returns filed after the due dates prescribed u/s 139(1) and 139(4) - belated returns filed by him were treated as invalid and consequently the amounts therein were treated as undisclosed income – It is not the case of the Revenue that , any undisclosed income had come to light as a result of search – belated returns, even though invalid, contained information showing the earning of the corresponding income and such information having been imparted to AO long before the search - held that there was no undisclosed income for the years in which advance tax had been paid for purpose of section 158BB
 
19 	2009 TMI - 33690 - HC
  	Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Khursheed Anwar
  	
Claim for special deduction u/s 80O in respect of commission received from the Italian firm – assessee had not established his claim by producing the relevant records – sales commission received by assessee was not for an activities relating to technical or professional services to principals – in absence of any materials to show that what was passed onto foreign enterprise was information concerning commercial or technical or scientific aid, merely because an agreement was entered into between the assessee and the foreign enterprise, assessee was not entitled to special deduction u/s 80O – in respect of interest on borrowed capital which was used for purchase of property and that property was used for purpose of business, interest is deductible
 
20 	2009 TMI - 33688 - HC
  	Rakesh N. Dutt Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and others
  	
Reassessment – AO passed block assessment order assessing 90 lac as undisclosed income - Block assessment set aside by tribunal observing that addition of Rs. 90 lakhs, would be taxable in the regular assessment of the two companies and not in the regular assessment of the assessee – since there was no finding that amount was taxable in hands of assessee, reopening of assessment by invoking section 150 cannot be sustained. Once it is held that section 150 is not applicable, then the reopening of the assessment after 6 years would be time barred