|
II. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. PR.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E-funds International India Pvt. Ltd.,
I.T.A. No. 607/2015, Date of Order: 06.10.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
AO is correct while not allowing deduction under Section 10A to the
Assessee either for the same or any subsequent assessment year where
assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act in AY
2000-01.
Held No.
The
decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Interra
Software India (P) Ltd. (2011) 238 CTR (Del) 23, Commissioner of
Income-tax v. Damco Solutions (P) Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 365 (Del)
and Commissioner of Income Tax v. EDS Electronics Data Systems (India)
(P) Ltd. (2013)89 DTR (Del) 182 answer the question in favour of the
Assessee and against the Revenue. These decisions explain that the
making of a claim under Section 80HHE of the Act in one assessment year
will not preclude an Assessee from claiming the benefit under Section
10A of the Act in respect of the same unit in a succeeding assessment
year. It was explained that the purpose of the Section 80HHE(5) of the
Act was to avoid double benefit but that would not mean that if for a
particular assessment year the Assessee wants to claim a benefit only
under Section 10A of the Act and not Section 80HHE, that would be denied
to the Assessee.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. PR.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt.
Ltd., I.T.A. No. 519/2015, Date of Order: 14.10.2015, High Court of
Delhi
Whether it is mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) subsequently to return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Held Yes
The
decision of this Court in CIT v. Vision Inc. proceeded on a different
set of facts. In that case, there was a clear finding of the Court that
service of the notice had been effected on the Assessee under Section
143 (2) of the Act. As already further noticed, the legal position
regarding Section 292BB has already been made explicit in the
aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision
would apply insofar as failure of “service” of notice was concerned and
not with regard to failure to “issue” notice. In other words, the
failure of the AO, in re-assessment proceedings, to issue notice under
Section 143(2) of the Act, prior to finalising the re-assessment order,
cannot be condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. The
resultant position is that as far as the present case is concerned the
failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2)
of the Act subsequent to 16th December 2010 when the Assessee made a
statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed
should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of
the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now