|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. CIT Vs. M/s Kichha Sugar Company Ltd., ITA No. 50 of 2009, Date of decision: 20.05.2013, Uttarakhand High Court
Decision: In favor of assessee
Section: 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of Income Tax Act, 1961
Whether
the due date under section 36(1)(va) for payment of employees’
contribution means due date for filing ROI as mentioned in section 43B
of the Act.
Held Yes,
the due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act must be read
in conjunction with section 43B(b) of the Act i.e. payment/ contribution
made to the Provident Fund Authority may be deposited any time before
filing the return for the year in which the liability to pay accrued in
order to get deduction from the income.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., ITA No. 608-609/ 2012, Date of decision: 20.05.2013, Delhi High Court
Decision: In favor of assessee
Section: 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961
Assessment Year: 2002- 03 & 2003- 04
Whether
failure on part of AO for examining truly and fully all the material
facts by the assessee could lead to reassessment and also mere
information regarding income escapement can be considered valid for the
purpose of sec. 147?
Held No,
in this case, the AO issued notice u/s 148 on the basis of the letter
of DIT (Inv.) which was vaguely referred and also the facts as contained
in the said communication were not mentioned. On examining the facts
and Audi Partem Alteram, it was concluded as the reassessment
proceedings was carried out without any material facts and were
completely vague and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble
High Court as no question of law arises.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now