The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
S. 36(1)(iii): Law on when interest expenditure on loans diverted to sister concerns and directors can be allowed as business expenditure explained
Once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), 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
DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co Ltd (Supreme Court)
S. 143(1)/ 147: As a s. 143(1) intimation is not an assessment, there is no question of "change of opinion" by the AO
Can it be said that any "assessment" is done by them? The reply is an emphatic "no". The intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under Section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under Section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise
Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)
S. 143(1)/ 147: If the assessment is reopened on the ground of "bogus purchases", the reasons must contain an averment of which details on record reflect the bogus purchases
The returns filed by the assessee have been processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment has placed reliance upon the record of the case. As noted hereinabove, there is no assertion as regards on what basis the Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee had made claim in respect of bogus purchases in the trading and the Profit and Loss Account as expenditure. The Assessing Officer has stated that on verification of the details available on record, it has been noticed that the assessee has made bogus purchases; however, no specific averments are made as regards which details available on record reflected such bogus purchases
DCM Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: The AO must give reasons before rejecting the assessee's claim. He must establish nexus between the expenditure & the exempt income. The disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income
The AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2). The AO has mechanically invoked Rule 8D. The AO has not established any nexus between the investments made and the expenditure incurred under the head interest expenditure and administrative expenses, before disregarding the disallowance suo moto made by the assessee. disallowance u/s.14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Spentex Industries Ltd vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
CBDT & Govt are bound by their own interpretation of a statutory provision. Principle of "contemporanea expositio" explained. The word "or" can be interpreted as "and" if the former leads to unintelligible and absurd results
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment