|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs. CIT, ITA No. 28 of 2012, Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2013, Delhi High Court
Decision: In favor of Revenue
Section: 132 of Income Tax Act 1961
Cases Referred:
1) Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 260
2) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18
Whether the ITAT was justified in law in reversing the decision
of CIT(A) and sustaining the addition of `1,75,00,000 made solely on
the basis of statements recorded at the time of search and as modified
vide subsequent letter dated 09.01.2006 in the absence of any evidence
including corroborative evidence discovered during the course of search ?
In
the present case, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs 1 crores on
11.11.2005 for buying peace of mind and to avoid litigation and
requested income tax department not to initiate any penalty proceedings
against him. Subsequently after ten days during the further search
operation the assessee made another statement where he surrendered an
additional sum of Rs 75 lakh on 21.11.2005 on behalf of himself and
family members and reiterated that no penal proceedings be initiated
against him. On 09.01.2006 the assessee sent a letter to the department
and contended that Rs 1.75 crores be bifurcated into sums 1.5 crores and
25 lakh, the former was according to assessee be treated as undisclosed
income and latter be attributed in hands of family members and used the
words “pending verification of such seized material”. The Tribunal held
that it is not a case of retracted confession as his letter confirmed
the earlier statements and also there was no allegation of threat or
coercion.
The High Court held the decision in favor of Revenue and thus the case got dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. UOI AND ORS.,
W.P.(C) No. 9016 of 2011, Judgment delivered on: 19.03.2013, Delhi High
Court
Decision: Writ Petition is disposed and handed over to Central Govt
Section: 35 of Income Tax Act 1961
Whether
the petitioner Centre for Development of Telematics is a ‘scientific
research association for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub section (1)
of section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the petitioner is
regarded as such a research association, any income of the petitioner
would be not included in the total income by virtue of section 10(21) of
the said Act?
In
the present case, the assessee is aggrieved by the fact that it has
been placed in second category of other institutions partly engaged in
scientific research. According to petitioner it should be placed in
former category of scientific research association as its sole object is
to undertake research and said that it receives royalty and other fees
which are ancillary to its sole object of undertaking research and ought
to be in category of sec 35(1)(ii) of Act.
The
HC observed that there is no clear cut position for determining this
has been prescribed by the Central Government. The HC set aside the
notification no. 12.04.2007 and directed the Central Government to
decide this question within 3 months.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now