1.   Court on its Own Motion vs CIT, W.P.(C) No. 2659/2012 Date of Order 31/08/2012, High Court Delhi

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its interim direction on PIL (Public-interest litigation), held that once the amount is correctly and rightly reflected in for 26AS, small or technical mismatch in the return should not be ground to deny credit. In such cases, if the Assessing Officer feels that the benefit of TDS reflected in AS26 should not be given, he should issue notice to the assessee to revise or correct the mistake and only if necessary rectification or correction is not made, an order U/S 143(1) should be passed and demand should be raised.

(Click here to view Judgment)

2.  Sh. Radheyshyam Sarda, Indore Vs. ACIT Indore, ITA No. 222/2012, for Assessment Year 2005–2006, Date of Judgment: 18/07/2012, ITAT – Indore

No penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) penalty can be levied, if revised ROI filed after detection but before issue of s. 148 notice.

It is the settled law that if a revised return offering additional income is filed after investigation has started but before the issue of the s. 148 notice, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is not leviable. In Sureshchand Mittal 251 ITR 9, the Supreme Court held that even where the assessee surrendered additional income by way of a revised return after persistent queries by the AO, once the revised ROI has been regularized by the revenue, the assessee’s explanation that he had declared the additional income to buy peace had to be treated as bona fide and s. 271(1)(c) penalty could not be levied.

(Please click here for judgment)

3.   CIT Vs. Gravs Appliance Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 745/2011, Dated: 06/08/2012, High Court of Delhi

Whether losses incurred by non-industrial undertakings can be set off against profits of industrial undertaking eligible for Sec 80IC benefits.

That sub-section (6) of section 80-I also applicable to 80IC begins with a non-obstante clause, and according to this section the quantum of deduction is to be computed as if the industrial undertaking were the only source of income of the assessee during the relevant years. Therefore each industrial undertaking or unit is to be treated separately and independently. The deduction u/s 80IA would be admissible only in those units and industrial undertaking which have a profit or gain. In 80IC(7), it has been provided that provisions contained in sub-section (5) and subsections (7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, applied to the eligible undertaking or enterprises under this section, meaning thereby that same provision would be applicable in section 80-IC. High Court in the case of Dewan Kraft Systems (P) Ltd. and Sona Koyo has held that each unit will be considered independently. Therefore the it is not correct to adjust the losses of non eligible unit against the eligible profit in respect of eligible unit for granting deduction under section 80-IC.

(Please click here for judgment)