II. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., I.T.A. No.
545/2015, Date of Order: 08.10.2015, Delhi High Court
Whether
ITAT was correct in dismissing the appeal observing, that apart from
making a mere reference to information received from the investigation
wing, the AO mechanically issued notice under Section 148 of the Act,
without coming to an independent conclusion that he has reason to
believe that the income has escaped assessment during the AY in
question.
Held Yes
In the
present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been
received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from
four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which
information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO
stated: “I have also perused various materials and report from
Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee
company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by
way of above accommodation entries.”
The
above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied
his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did
not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so
called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have
been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to
make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were
provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered
along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was
processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without forming a prima facie
opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO
to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has
introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation
entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law
explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions
discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his
mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the
income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present
case.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Thomson Press (India) Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No. 83/2003, Date of Judgment: 09.10.2015, Delhi High Court
Whether
the Assessee could include notional interest as income in computation
of profits and gains derived by its undertaking from export of articles
or things, for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 10A of
the Act.
Held No.
In the
present case, the Assessee has not derived any interest income.
Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been
accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely
alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a
part of the Assessee’s income and thus the Assessee’s claim that the
same is to be excluded under Section 10A of the Act is flawed and wholly
unsustainable in law. The view as canvassed on behalf of the Assessee
is not, even remotely, plausible and we find no infirmity with the CIT’s
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
(Please click here for judgment)
|