| 
			II.  Direct Taxes Case Laws:
			 
			
			
			 
			 
			 
			1.  Principal
			Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., I.T.A. No. 
			545/2015, Date of Order: 08.10.2015, Delhi High Court
 
			Whether
			ITAT was correct in dismissing the appeal observing, that apart from 
			making a mere reference to information received from the investigation 
			wing, the AO mechanically issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, 
			without coming to an independent conclusion that he has reason to 
			believe that the income has escaped assessment during the AY in 
			question.
 
			Held Yes
 
			In the 
			present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been 
			received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from 
			four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which 
			information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO
			stated: “I have also perused various materials and report from 
			Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee 
			company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by 
			way of above accommodation entries.” 
			 
			The 
			above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied 
			his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did 
			not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so 
			called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have 
			been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to
			make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were 
			provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered 
			along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was 
			processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without forming a prima facie
			opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO 
			to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has 
			introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation
			entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law 
			explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions 
			discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his
			mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the 
			income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present 
			case.
 
			(Please click here for judgment) 
 
			 
			 
			2.  Thomson Press (India) Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No. 83/2003, Date of Judgment: 09.10.2015, Delhi High Court
 
			Whether
			the Assessee could include notional interest as income in computation 
			of profits and gains derived by its undertaking from export of articles 
			or things, for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 10A of 
			the Act.
 
			Held No.
 
			In the 
			present case, the Assessee has not derived any interest income. 
			Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been 
			accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely 
			alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a
			part of the Assessee’s income and thus the Assessee’s claim that the 
			same is to be excluded under Section 10A of the Act is flawed and wholly
			unsustainable in law. The view as canvassed on behalf of the Assessee 
			is not, even remotely, plausible and we find no infirmity with the CIT’s
			exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
			 
			(Please click here for judgment)    
 
 |