Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 201 to 220 of 591 Records

• 2012 (3) TMI 530
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on relief granted to assessee for failure to obtain approval u/s 10(23)(c)(via) of the Act.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) for the assessment year 2003-04. The main issue was regarding the relief granted to the assessee despite the failure to obtain approval under section 10(23)(c)(via) of the Act, which is mandatory. The counsel for the assessee requested that the issue be set aside to the file of the assessing officer based on Tribunal directions in a previous case. The Departmental Representative, however, relied on the assessing officer's order.
  
  Upon hearing both parties, it was noted that in a previous case for the assessment year 2006-07, a similar issue was set aside to the assessing officer's file by the Tribunal. This decision was based on earlier Tribunal orders in other cases. The relevant portions of the previous order were reproduced for reference. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal in previous cases, the current issue was also set aside to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to examine whether the assessee was collecting capitation fees and to decide the issue accordingly.
  
  Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the issue to the assessing officer with directions for reevaluation. The order was pronounced on 7.3.2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 529
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for undervaluation of closing stock of raw material.
  2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for undervaluation of stock lying in work-in-progress (WIP).
  3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of depreciation on assets not used for business purposes.
  4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for various additions in the assessment year 1998-99.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Undervaluation of Closing Stock of Raw Material:
  The assessee undervalued its closing stock of polyester film imported from Korea, leading to an addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the AO. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition at Rs. 2,47,732/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was debatable and there was no under-declaration of physical stock. The penalty was canceled based on the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., which held that mere sustenance of addition does not automatically lead to penalty.
  
  2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Undervaluation of Stock Lying in Work-in-Progress (WIP):
  The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,07,358/- for undervaluation of WIP. The CIT(A) quashed the penalty, relying on the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02, where it was held that additions made on an estimate basis do not lead to penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the addition was based on estimates and did not warrant penal action.
  
  3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Not Used for Business Purposes:
  The AO disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,93,104/- on plant & machinery and dyes & moulds not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, noting that the claim was based on the concept of "block of assets," which is supported by various case laws. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the issue was debatable and the claim was not false.
  
  4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Various Additions in the Assessment Year 1998-99:
  - Undervaluation of Stock Lying in WIP: The CIT(A) quashed the penalty following the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2000-2001.
  - Excess Deduction Claimed u/s 80-IA: The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, noting that the reduction in deduction was due to overhead expenses and was supported by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Lal.
  - Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting that the disallowance was partly due to capital nature and lack of details, and relying on the Apex Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd.
  
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all counts, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and confirming that the issues were debatable and did not warrant penal action. The judgments of the Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court were heavily relied upon to support the conclusions.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 528
  

  Disallowance of business loss - Held that:- It shall be in the interest of justice to set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the facts and allow the claim of the assessee in the assessment year 2000-2001 in appeal before the Tribunal, provided, any similar claim has not been made by the assessee in any of the subsequent assessment years and the claim of the “Mekor” has been allowed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the assessee has in fact complied with and has paid the compensation subsequently on account of loss for non-fulfillment of the contract for purchase of imported news print.

  Disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- We find that the debts pertained to non-trade parties have not been allowed by the CIT(A) as bad debts. It is not necessary to take any legal steps in order to justify the claim of the bad debts. The amount has been written off in the books of accounts of the assessee and this fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order while allowing the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee is in the business of dealing in shares and securities and finance and in business various debts had arisen in the past.

  Method of valuation - Held that:- We hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that such non-existing assets cannot be considered in the valuation of the stock of the assessee and the assessee has justifiably revalued the stock in terms of the method of valuation adopted by it in the year under consideration. The CIT(A) has recorded that it is not the case of the AO that the value shown by the assessee on the basis of net realisable value is not correct. In these facts of the case, we hold that the third objection of the Revenue regarding method of valuation is also not sustainable and there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on this issue

  Non accepting the assessee’s claim of reduction from sales in this year - Held that:- The assessee has filed its return of income on that basis alone. Even in the revised return of income filed subsequently by the assessee, the sale entries were not reversed by the assessee. The assessee has put forward its claim by filing a letter dated 21-3-2003. The assessee could not state that whether fresh sales were made of the same in the subsequent year or years and have found place in the books of accounts of the subsequent years. In these facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the amount has been rightly taxed in the year under appeal before us and there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the AO has rightly taxed in the relevant assessment year.

  Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of excess capital loss - Held that:- We find that it is a case of bona fide mistake in calculating the long term capital loss in applying the cost of indexation by the accountant. The CIT(A) has given a finding that complete facts relating thereof were given by the assessee in its return of income filed with the department. In these facts, since the mistake was bona fide in calculation only and the material facts were disclosed at the time of assessment itself, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that no penalty was leviable on this issue. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) in canceling the penalty is confirmed and this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - depreciation disallowance - Held that:- The depreciation was claimed by the assessee on its business assets. Merely because the assessee was not entitled to double deduction of depreciation as well as deduction under Section 24 of the Act in accordance with the scheme of the IT Act, 1961, it cannot be said that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The conduct of the assessee was bona fide and it is a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee and the department regarding the allowability of certain claim of deduction made by the assessee.The assessee has agitated the disallowance in the quantum appeal before the CIT(A) for the relevant year and the deduction being not allowable as per the law, was not allowed to the assessee. There is no material brought on record to suggest that the explanation of the assessee was not bona fide and since the assessee has disclosed all the material facts relating to the claim of the assessee, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is accordingly cancelled and the ground of the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 527
  

  Routers & switches are to be included in the block of computers as they cannot be used without the computers.

  Depreciation on purchase of software license disallowed - assessee company could not prove that the software was acquired and installed and put to use by 31.3.2008 - Held that:- As the licence was to be acquired and to be put to use for the newly acquired co-operative banks, enhanced licenses were to be acquired. It was submitted by the AR that the assessee company acquired the licences for enhanced use, and wee put to use on 31.3.2008, the AR invited our attention to a copy of daily trial balance for Ankali Miraj Branch on 31.3.2008. On going through the facts on this issue also, we feel that the assessee company has gone on to prove that the software which was actually acquired and put to use on 31.3.2008 and hence, the assessee company has rightly claimed depreciation at 30% (being 50% of 60%). We, accordingly, allow the grievance of the assessee on this count.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 526
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against orders of CIT(A) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08; Addition made on protective basis; Deletion of commission income; Reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Addition made on protective basis
  The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 11,22,60,500 made on a protective basis, based on a statement by the director of the assessee company. The Tribunal noted that the director retracted his statement, and there was no substantiated evidence to support the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, citing that all investments were recorded in the company's books, and there was no basis for the addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of commission income
  The Revenue contested the deletion of 2% commission income of Rs. 22,45,210 for entry provided by the assessee company. The Tribunal found no substantial material to support the Revenue's contention of cash received against cheques issued, leading to no presumptive income in the form of commission. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the commission income estimated by the AO. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was also dismissed.
  
  Reliance on previous Tribunal decisions
  The Tribunal noted that the facts in the present case were identical to previous Tribunal decisions. The CIT(A) relied on these decisions to allow the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence for the additions made by the AO. As the Revenue could not provide contrary facts or decisions, both appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) based on the lack of substantiated evidence and reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 525
  

  Whether misconduct has been detrimental to the public interest?

  Held that:- Appeal allowed. The order impugned removing the appellant from the post and declaring him further disqualified for a period of six years had been passed. It is not evident from the order impugned as what could be those new grounds which had not been disclosed to the appellant. Thus, to ascertain as to whether in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to meet the alleged new grounds, the competent authority had adjourned the case, this Court while reserving the judgment vide order dated 13.2.2012 asked the learned Standing Counsel for the State Shri Mike Prakash Desai to produce the original record before this Court within a period of two weeks. For the reasons best known to the State Authorities neither the record has been produced before us, nor any application has been filed to extend the time to produce the same.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 524
  
  The High Court of Bombay admitted the appeal based on amended questions of law regarding the CESTAT's decision on the order-in-original related to clandestine removal and duty evasion. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that lacked findings on clandestine removal and intention to evade duty.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 523
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of additions made u/s 68 of the IT Act.
  2. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of Additions Made u/s 68 of the IT Act

  The revenue contested the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s 68 of the IT Act for Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The CIT (A) had deleted the additions on the grounds that the share application money received by the assessee from its associate concern was genuine and duly reflected in the balance sheets of both parties. The CIT (A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmation letters, bank statements, and income tax returns, to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that no additional evidence was considered and that the A.O had not pointed out any discrepancies in the provided documents. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals, affirming that the amounts could not be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.

  Issue 2: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings

  The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O based on an audit objection. The CIT (A) upheld the reassessment proceedings, but the Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on the incorrect application of Section 2 (22)(e) of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not a registered shareholder of the payer company, and thus, Section 2 (22)(e) was not applicable, referencing the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the income could not be said to have escaped assessment on this basis, and thus, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. As a result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee became infructuous and were dismissed.

  Conclusion:

  The Tribunal dismissed both the departmental appeals and the Cross Objections, affirming the CIT (A)'s deletion of additions u/s 68 and invalidating the reassessment proceedings.

  The order was pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 522
  

  Grant of anticipatory bail - Held that:- The High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction considering the nature and gravity of the offence and as the FIR had been lodged spontaneously, its veracity is reliable. The High Court has very lightly brushed aside the fact that FIR had been lodged spontaneously and further did not record any reason as how the pre-requisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provision itself stood fulfilled. Nor did the court consider as to whether custodial interrogation was required.

  The court may not exercise its discretion in derogation of established principles of law, rather it has to be in strict adherence to them. Discretion has to be guided by law; duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or vague. The court must not yield to spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence. The order dehors the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. itself suffers from nonapplication of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 521
  

  Penalty levied u/s 271G and 271AA - Held that:- A perusal of the show cause notices levied u/s 271AA and 271G shows that there is no specific indication as to the documents which were not furnished. In fact, the order of the TPO shows that the details were called for and the assessee had submitted the details. Further perusal of the order of the TPO shows that the assessee had been asked to provide the details in 30 days. However, the details had been produced with delay of six months.

  Perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the reason for delay in producing the documents was the resignation of the secretary and this claim of the assessee has not been found to be false. The assessee admittedly is a corporate entity. The assessee can function only through its employees. If an employee leaves the services of the assessee company getting another employee to take over the job and get acclimatized and familiar to the functions originally done by the earlier employee would take time. This would be a reasonable cause. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has also accepted this as reasonable cause. The claim of the assessee has also not been found to be false. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting both the penalties u/s 271AA and 271G of the Act. Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 520
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to intimation by Assistant Commissioner of Customs regarding qualification under Regulations 8 and 9 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Challenge to intimation regarding qualification under Regulations 8 and 9 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004.
  The petitioner challenged the intimation issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, stating that the petitioner was not qualified under Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Customs should consider the application in accordance with the law.
  
  Decision:
  After hearing the arguments, the Court noted that Regulations 8(vii) and 9 designate the Commissioner of Customs as the appropriate authority for granting a license. The Court found the intimation vague and set it aside. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider the petitioner's application within eight weeks, providing an opportunity for a hearing and verifying records. The petitioner could present judgments and documents in support of their contentions, which the Commissioner must address in the reasoned order.
  
  Additional Points:
  The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all points to be addressed by the Commissioner. The writ petition was disposed of without requiring the respondents to file affidavits, with allegations not deemed admitted. No costs were awarded, and urgent certified copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon application.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 519
  

  Share issue expenses attributable to acquisition of assets - Held that:- In the previous Assessment Year 1983-84, the Assessee incurred an expenditure of ₹ 65.55 lacs in connection with the issue of share capital of which the Assessee claimed that the expenditure in the amount of ₹ 45.99 lacs was directly connected to the acquisition of capital assets in the nature of plant and machinery whereas the balance of ₹ 16.55 lacs was incurred on revenue account. The Tribunal by its order dated 10 March 2006 held that share issue expenses to the extent of ₹ 45.99 lacs were attributable to the acquisition of assets in the form of plant and machinery and should be capitalized under that head and the depreciation/investment allowance would have to be allowed.

  Assessee is entitled to the deduction in respect of enhanced liability of ₹ 612.32 lacs being payment of interest to be made under the Drug Price Control Order,1979 notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of Section 43B was not complied with

  Exclude expenditure incurred on Insurance Premium for Health Insurance Scheme of the employees and club membership fees for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s.40A(5) and 40(c)

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 518
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves the interpretation of chemical examination reports obtained during the investigation of alleged offences under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act, specifically focusing on the admissibility and credibility of the reports and the subsequent prosecution proceedings.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Admissibility of Chemical Examination Reports
  The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought to quash the final report based on conflicting chemical examination reports (Annexures A and B) of coconut toddy samples. Annexure A indicated ethyl alcohol content exceeding the prescribed limit, while Annexure B showed compliance. The prosecution argued that Annexure B report's admissibility should be determined during trial, citing potential chemical changes affecting alcohol percentage. The petitioners contended that their livelihood and right to life were at stake if the prosecution continued.
  
  Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Interpretation of Section 293 Cr.P.C
  The court considered precedents like Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala and Joshy George v. State of Kerala, where conflicting views on the admissibility of chemical reports were presented. The court analyzed Section 293 of the Code, emphasizing the admissibility of reports obtained during proceedings. It noted that Annexure B report, obtained during the investigation, was supported by Section 293, unlike Annexure A. The court highlighted the importance of relying on reports favoring the accused when prosecution fails to impeach them.
  
  Judgment
  The court, following the principle established in Joshy George's case, intervened under Section 482 of the Code and allowed the petition, quashing further proceedings based on the final report. It emphasized the need for clarity in the Rules regarding sending samples for analysis and suggested amending the process to enhance credibility by involving higher-ranking expert examiners.
  
  In conclusion, the court's decision to quash the final report was based on the admissibility and credibility of the chemical examination reports, highlighting the importance of following statutory provisions and ensuring fairness in prosecution proceedings.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 517
  

  Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IC in pursuance of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s.80IB on the amount disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) while working out the eligible profits of the industrial undertaking.

  In view of the aforesaid preposition of law and ratio laid down by the various courts, we hold that disallowance of ₹ 7,38,038/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) by the Assessing Officer will go to enhance the profit which would again be eligible for full deduction u/s.80IC as it provides for 100% deduction from the profits and gains from the eligible business.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 516
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Taxability of capital gains arising from the buy-back of shares under the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty.
  2. Obligation to withhold tax on the remittance of buy-back proceeds u/s 195 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Taxability of Capital Gains
  The applicant, an Indian company, proposed a buy-back of shares held by XYZ (Mauritius), a tax resident of Mauritius. The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether the capital gains arising from this buy-back would be exempt from taxation in India under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty. The Revenue argued that the transaction was designed to avoid tax in India, as the applicant had not declared dividends since the introduction of Section 115-O of the Income-tax Act in 2003, which imposed a tax on distributed profits. The Revenue contended that the buy-back was a scheme to repatriate funds to XYZ (Mauritius) without paying tax on distributed profits.
  
  The Authority found that the buy-back was a colorable device for avoiding tax on distributed profits. It concluded that the transaction should be treated as a distribution of profits, taxable as dividends under Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the amount payable to XYZ (Mauritius) would be taxable in India under Article 10 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty.
  
  Issue 2: Obligation to Withhold Tax
  Given the ruling on the taxability of the buy-back proceeds as dividends, the Authority held that the applicant is required to withhold tax on the remittance of the buy-back proceeds to XYZ (Mauritius) u/s 195 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Authority ruled that the capital gains arising from the buy-back of shares by XYZ (Mauritius) would be taxable in India as dividends under Article 10 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty. Consequently, the applicant is required to withhold tax on the remittance of the buy-back proceeds to XYZ (Mauritius).

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 515
  
  Issues involved: The judgment involves the waiver of a loan amount and the taxability of expenses claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03.
  
  Waiver of Loan Amount:
  The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,90,70,000, arguing that the waiver of the loan should be considered as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer contended that the benefit from the waiver arose from the business and should be taxed. However, the assessee argued that the loan was taken for acquiring a capital asset, making the waiver non-taxable. The Tribunal found that the loan was indeed taken for acquiring capital assets, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, and ruled that the waiver amount was not chargeable as income for the year under appeal.
  
  Taxability of Expenses:
  The Revenue challenged the allowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 16,57,407, claiming that there were no business activities during the year. The Revenue requested the matter to be sent back to the Assessing Officer based on a previous decision for AY 2004-05. The CIT(A) had allowed part of the expenditure after considering each item in detail. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenditure allocation was done diligently, and there was no need to send the matter back for reassessment. The Tribunal found no justification for interference and sustained the CIT(A)'s order.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2002-03, as well as the cross-objection by the assessee. In other appeals with identical issues, the Tribunal applied the outcome of the AY 2002-03 appeal and dismissed them accordingly. The decision was pronounced on 30th March 2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 514
  
  Issues involved:
  The appeal against the deletion of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was challenged on the grounds of erroneous deletion and failure to uphold the Assessing Officer's order.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  1. The assessment u/s 143(3) revealed non-deduction of tax at source as per 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed claimed expenses and initiated penalty proceedings separately.
  
  2. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) and the assessee submitted a detailed reply requesting non-imposition of penalty. However, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 4,44,510 u/s 271(1)(c).
  
  3. The CIT(A) observed that a portion of TDS had been deposited before the due date of filing the return, citing a relevant ITAT decision, and directed the deletion of the penalty.
  
  4. The arguments presented by both sides were considered, with the Departmental Representative justifying the penalty and the assessee's counsel highlighting amendments in the Act and the debatable nature of the issue.
  
  5. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to deduct TDS as required by law, suppressing income particulars, and not making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) was deemed unjustified in granting relief to the assessee, and the penalty was reinstated.
  
  6. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases cited by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing the non-applicability of those decisions to the present case, where the issue was not debatable at the time of filing the return.
  
  7. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the penalty order was upheld.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 513
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of income amount and claim of depreciation amount by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Deletion of income amount: The Assessing Officer raised two grounds of appeal regarding the deletion of an amount from the income of the assessee. The issue was whether the assessee had properly exercised its option u/s 11(1) to defer the amount to the succeeding year. The Tribunal referred to a case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which emphasized that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, including allowing for normal depreciation. The Tribunal, following the High Court's order, dismissed the appeal filed by the AO.
  
  Claim of depreciation amount: The second issue was related to the claim of depreciation amounting to a specific sum on assets whose cost had already been allowed as application. The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the High Court regarding the computation of income derived from trust property on commercial principles. It was noted that normal depreciation can be a legitimate deduction even if the trust is not engaged in business activities. The Tribunal upheld the claim of depreciation, stating that it should be deducted from the income to arrive at any surplus to be taxed.
  
  Conclusion: The Tribunal, in line with the High Court's decision, dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer based on the principles of computing income for charitable trusts on commercial principles and allowing for normal depreciation.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 512
  

  Eligibility of award - tender proceedings - Held that:- As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender.

  As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, the CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding prequalification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

  The learned single Judge considered all these aspects in detail and after finding that those two conditions cannot be said to be discriminatory and unreasonable refused to interfere exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition. The well reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 511
  
  The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal as the net tax effect was less than Rs. 2 lakh, making it not maintainable under instruction No. 2/2015. The appeal was filed for recurring income tax, but the revenue can still assess the assessee in the future without being influenced by the court's order.

  ---

1 ....789101112131415........ 30