1.  BHC in CIT vs M/s Tips Industries P. Ltd.: Search Assessment 158BC/Ch XIV-B etc: Held

a)      The first question raised by the revenue relates to deletion of Rs.3.2 lacs and Rs.3.12 lacs being additions made by the A.O. under Section 69C on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of the expenditure noted at pages one and two of the seized papers. question raised by the revenue cannot be said to give rise to any substantial question of law.

b)      Once the cash withdrawal of Rs.5 lacs from the bank by the assessee is established, irrespective of the entry in the cash book, it was possible to reasonably hold that out of the cash withdrawal of Rs.5 lacs, an amount of Rs.4 lacs was given to cashier.

c)      The Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that the written agreement with Weston Components Limited produced by the assessee gave credence to the explanation given by the assessee that the notings represented the payment schedule and not the actual payment.. There is no material on record to suggest that over and above the agreement dated 27/4/1999, the assessee had entered into an agreement with Weston Components Ltd. or any other person which could be connected to the notings contained in the seized paper. In these circumstances, the explanation given by the assessee being reasonable and possible, the decision of the Tribunal in accepting the contention of the assessee cannot be faulted”

(Click here for analysis)

(Click here for judgment)  

   

2.  DHC in CIT vs Ultimate Fashion Maker Ltd.: Section 271(1)(c) : Concealment Penalty: Held

“The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee had disclosed all the primary and material facts and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed his income or had furnished inappropriate particulars of income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed explanation regarding its claim for deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act which, according to the Tribunal, could not be said to be a false claim.  3. More importantly, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the issue of claim of DEPB was a debatable one when the assessee filed its return and that it amounted to a clear case of honest difference of opinion regarding the allowability of certain deductions made by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no mistake in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty.  4. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal” 

(Click here for judgment)

   

3.  DHC in CIT vs  Aero Traders P. Ltd: Concealment Penalty: Section 271(1)(c): Held 

“The operative portion of the impugned order/ITAT dated 04.12.2008 is as follows:

“As the facts emerge the substantial quantum relief was given by the CIT (A) which has been confirmed by the Tribunal, the balance pertains to estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee which in our view does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. In our view, the CIT (A) has taken right decision in deleting the penalty which is upheld.”  7. The appeal is filed against the abovementioned order of the Tribunal dated 04.12.2008. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal does not warrant interference from this Court as it is purely a finding of fact..” 

(Click here for judgment)    

                

 What's New 

a.   Regular books of account which record the relevant facts in documentary form have to be treated as evidence in terms of section 158BB (Click for detail)

b.   Important Definitions on Taxation (Click for detail)

c.   Joint assessment is not permitted (Click for detail)

d.   Conditions for reopening back-assessments (Click for detail)

  

(Click here) for Team Voice of CA Chapters detail.

        

"We receive three educations, one from our parents, one from our schoolmasters, and one from the world.  The third contradicts all that the first two teach us "

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA

Member  Central Council - ICAI  (Former Chairman - NIRC)

Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com

CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes, Mob:9910272806, cakapilgoel@gmail.com

CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator, sidhjasso@yahoo.com

CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA, mkak@rediffmail.com