1. CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 399/2013, Date of decision: 22.01.14, High Court of Delhi
Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Whether
statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A and retracted
thereafter have any evidentiary value in case where assessee proved the
genuineness of the same transaction?
Held: No
The statement
of the director was recorded in the course of survey u/s 133A in which
it was admitted that the purchase transactions were bogus and
subsequently retracted. Therefore the same has did not have any
evidentiary value since no copy of the statement was given to the
assessee to enable him to cross-examine. Further, the assessee submitted
the sales-tax return in support of the alleged transaction. These
established firmly and conclusively that the claim of the assessee that
it had purchased goods from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation was borne
out.
The appeal is unmerited and is accordingly dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs. CIT-XI, W.P.(C) 7660/2012, Date of pronouncement: 28.01.2014, Delhi High Court
Whether a
return of income processed u/s 143(1) can be reassessed u/s 147 on mere
change of opinion of Assessing officer on the basis of information for
subsequent AY is justified?
Held_No
The present
WRIT is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. AO
regarding reassessment of income for the AY 2005-06, wherein income from
sale of securities were taxed as STCG at the rate of 10% but in
subsequent AY 2007-08, the same was taxed as business income. The
reasons provided by AO for reopening the assessment for AY 2005-06 was
that as per the office note of the AO for the A.Y. 2007-08, the issue of
treating of STCG income on sale of share is needed to be assessed again
as business income. The assessee in return argued that AO didn’t have
any valid reason to believe, but it was just a change of an opinion. The
Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decision
in case of CIT v. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) emphasizing that
AO has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come
to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment.
Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now