1.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ELI LILLY & CO. INDIA PVT. LTD., ITA NO. 97 OF 2009 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 25.02.2011, ITA 97 OF 2009 & ITA 657/2010, HIGH COURT OF DELHI

The adjustment made by the AO for the intimation issued under Section 143 (1) of the Act by way of a rectification order in respect of unabsorbed depreciation was beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing officer had no power to take recourse to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act.

It could not be stated that there was an error which could be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. The assessee had claimed the set off Rs 1,39,36,000 in terms of Explanation III (of (2) proviso to Section 164 JA (2) of the Act) as against the brought forward loss as per the books at Rs. 15,01,82,00/-. Thus, the matter related to the interpretation of the effect which is to be given to the aforesaid provision and, therefore, it was not a mistake which was to be corrected for which jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act could be exercised.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVII, Vs. CADBURY INDIA LIMITED, ITA NOS. 1397/2008, 1398/2008 AND 429/2009, DATE OF DECISION : 28TH MARCH 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

The assessee had been deducting tax from the payments payable to CFA under Section 194C on a consolidated basis towards different heads. There is no reason to disbelieve the assessee that the same was being done by its employees on misconceived professional advice given by the Chartered Accountants. Since the payment were to be deducted from CFA no benefit was to be derived by the assessee for making lesser or inaccurate deductions. No malafide intention of any kind can be attributed to the assessee for deducting tax under one provision of law than the other. This was neither the case of malafide intention nor that of negligent intention or want of bonafide, but a case of misconceived belief of applicability of one provision of law. We cannot say judiciously that the assessee has failed to comply with the provision of Section 194I and 194J of the Act without reasonable cause.

(Please click here for judgment)