1.           M.L.B.D Books International: DHC has dismissed assessee’s appeal and has affirmed ITAT order. In this case, DHC has affirmed disallowance by Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2) on account of unreasonable/excessive purchase price, as paid by assessee to its sister concern, which was made after comparing the purchases rates charged by other persons from assessee company. In this case, assessee’s explanation that difference in rates occurred due to hard bound volume being supplied by related/sister concern, has been held by DHC to be rightly rejected by AO on the ground that bill from sister concern never shown that books supplied were hard bound. Further, DHC has affirmed the ITAT/CIT-A and AO’s order confirming disallowance of commission payment to sister concern u/s 40A(2) on the ground that :

            “that some of the directors of MBPPL/sister concern and persons who were in control of the assessee were common. He was also of the view that the assessee had failed to establish the adequacy and need for payment of commission.”

2.           Flow Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd.: DHC while affirming underlying ITAT order has interalia held that: “In these circumstances, we find no perversity in the conclusion reached by ITAT that the expense in issue incurred for purposes of generating a feasibility report for the benefit of the Assessee is in the nature of a revenue expense” where the finding of fact that there was unity of control and interlacing of the new line of business with the existing business has been returned by the ITAT.

           (ALSO SEE P&HHC in MAJESTIC AUTO  18 DTR 261; MAD HC IN 219 CTR 202; ETC)

3.           Exinn Securities and Credits: DHC while dismissing revenue’s appeal pleading that ITAT failed to consider the violation of rule 46A(3) (non confrontation of additional evidence etc to AO), while highlighting the importance of specific appeal grounds before ITAT has held that

“We are unable to accept this argument for simple reason that violation of Rule 46A(3) was not a ground raised before the ITAT despite the fact that it may have been contemplated in the order dated 06.06.2002. The Tribunal cannot be legally faulted in not taking the said rule into consideration if it did not form a part of the appeal at all.”

(Click here for Judgment)

4.           Napcon Turbochargers Ltd.: DHC in context of allowability of expenses to keep the business going, has affirmed ITAT order to the effect:

"In fact, I have given a finding in assessment year 2002-03 that the business of turbo chargers is in existence and merely because orders were not received, there could be no adverse inference.

As in the case of preceding year, there is no sale of any plant and machinery or closure of the establishment and on the contrary from the various expenses  incurred by the appellant, continuation of business is fully supported"

Further refer: DHC in Anita Jain and Del ITAT in Mokul Finance

                  (Click here for Judgment) 

NOTE  :Last date for submission of online application for Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF) for the year 2009-2010 is 15-06-2009. ( source : www.meficai.org ) And submission of hard copy of declaration of MEF for the year 2009-2010 to The Director, PD Directorate, ICAI, New Delhi - 110002 is 30-06-2009.