SC in Mokul Finance: has dismissed revenue's Special Leave Petition/SLP after condoning delay and hence approved underlying Delhi High Court ruling since reported at 173 Taxmann 399.In this ruling, it is held that in case all the details/information relating to reopening ground are originally put forth by assessee in earlier regular assessment u/s 143(3), no reopening is permissible on said ground after four years from end of relevant asst year as the matter stands protected by proviso to section 147.

(For Full Judgment Click Here) 

Delhi High Court/DHC in MOVING PICTURE COMPANY (Payer/Deductor) : On Tax Withholding/TDS on Payment of Purchase of Free Commercial Time (based on corresponding Cost of T.V. Serial Production adding certain markup) and Trade Discount u/s 194J and 194H - Held Not Attracted (Underlying Detailed Delhi ITAT ruling is reported at 20 SOT 120)

(For Full Judgment Click Here)

Delhi High Court in Shakuntla Devi :  Held No addition on account of understatement of purchase consideration merely on basis of Valuation Report - Revenue bound to bring material on record to prove - amount over and above stated consideration in sale deed changed hands (also see latest DHC rulings in Nilopher Singh & Devi Dayal) 

(For Full Judgment Click Here)  

Delhi High Court/DHC in Ester Industries : In this ruling, DHC in context of order passed in second round by ITAT after its first order being set aside by DHC on ground of non affording of reasonable hearing opportunity, has again been set aside for want of application of mind interalia because ITAT passed second order with cosmetic change in earlier order and did not apply its mind to the controversy "whether the fact that assessee has made an admission with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return and/or revised return would ipso facto bar the assessee from claiming an expense or disputing an addition, if it is otherwise permissible under law."Further, DHC with reference to SC ruling in 91 ITR 18, has observed that mere position expressed in Tax Audit Report could not be formed on the basis of addition/disallowances by the Assessing Officer.

(For Full Judgment Click Here) 

DHC in Maha Maya General Finance and Anand Prakash: In these cases, DHC while reaffirming on basis of SC ruling in Pronnoy Roy (which approved DHC ruling in Pronnoy Roy 254 ITR 755) that interest chargeable u/s 234B is purely compensatory and can be levied only where revenue has suffered loss/where money belonging to revenue is withheld, has further concluded that no interest under said provision can be charged with respect to an "income" which could not be contemplated in relevant financial year by assessee concerned. This is so held on basis of legal principle that "law cannot compel anyone to do the impossible".

(For Full Judgment Click Here) 

Delhi High Court in Rajeev Gupta while dismissing assessee's appeal, has emphasized that an assessee should diligently answer the queries put to it during survey/search operations under the Act and there should be no incongruity between the version stated in search statement and submission taken during asssessment proceedings.

(For Full Judgment Click Here) 

                                     "Voice of CA"   

"Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do."