|
II. Direct Tax Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. M/s Sarkar Builders, Civil Appeal No. 4476 of 2015, Date of Order: 15.05.2015, Supreme Court of India
Whether
restriction on extent of commercial area in “housing project” imposed
w.e.f. 1.4.2005 applies to housing projects approved before 1.4.2005
even though completed after 1.4.2005
Held No.
The SC
opinioned that “Can it be said that in order to avail the benefit in the
assessment years after 1.4.2005, balconies should be removed though
these were permitted earlier? Holding so would lead to absurd results as
one cannot expect an assessee to comply with a condition that was not a
part of the statute when the housing project was approved. We, thus,
find that the only way to resolve the issue would be to hold that clause
(d) is to be treated as inextricably linked with the approval and
construction of the housing project and an assessee cannot be called
upon to comply with the said condition when it was not in contemplation
either of the assessee or even the Legislature, when the housing project
was accorded approval by the local authorities.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. M/s Navbharat Exports, I.T.A. No. 212/2013, Date of Order: 05.05.2015, High Court of New Delhi
Whether
ITAT war correct in deleting the findings with respect to the error in
rejection of books and the imposition of 12% GP rate by the AO on
account of absence of stock register and other alleged irregularities;
and Directing to cancel the addition on account of notional income
worked out by the AO.
Held Yes
The
assessee in its audit report specifically alleged that it is maintaining
stock register.All the details of purchase, sales and exports are being
maintained and shown to the Assessing Officer. In spite of that, in a
flimsy way, Assessing Officer had made the above remark. The next
objection pointed out by the Assessing Officer is that yield shown by
the assessee is not reliable. The criteria for making comparison of
yield by the Assessing Officer is not discernible. He observed that a
loose paper was found at the premises of erstwhile partner and the yield
computed on that loose paper did not match with the ultimate yield
shown by the assessee. It is not coming out on the record that how that
loose paper is relevant for working out the yield. The yield of the
assessee ought to be verified from the factor, what type of rice it had
purchased, how it has processed, what type of machinery it has used,
those percentage ought to be compared with some similarly situated
assessee or with the result of other years. No such steps have been
taken by the Assessing Officer. He merely assigned one reason for the
sake of giving reasons.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now