The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Aroni Commercials Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 147/ 148: Writ Petition challenging lack of jurisdiction to issue s. 148 notice on the ground that it is based on 'change of opinion' & preconditions of s. 147 are not satisfied is maintainable
The argument, based on JCIT vs. Kalanithi Maran, that this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should be left to avail of the statutory remedies available under the Act is not acceptable. The decision of the Madras High Court in Kalanithi Maran proceeded on the basis that the dispute urged before it were with regard to adjudicatory facts and not with regard to jurisdictional facts as raised in this petition. The Madras High Court itself points out that that when an assessment sought to be reopened by an Officer who is not competent to do so or where on the face of it would appear that the reopening is barred by limitation or lacks inherent jurisdiction, the court would certainly entertain a challenge to the reopening notice in its writ jurisdiction. The Madras High Court itself drew a distinction between the adjudicating facts and jurisdictional facts. It was in the above context that challenges to the reopening notice u/s 147 and 148 of the Act was not interfered with by the Madras High Court as the challenge before it appears to have been with regard to adjudicating facts as contrasted with the jurisdictional facts raised in this case
Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Agra)
S. 57(iii): Interest paid on a loan taken to avoid premature encashment of a fixed deposit is deductible against the interest earned on the fixed deposit
On these facts, in order to protect the interest earnings from fixed deposits and to meet her financial needs, when an assessee raises a loan against the fixed deposits, so as to keep the source of earning intact, the expenditure so incurred in wholly and exclusively to earn the fixed deposit interest income. The authorities below were apparently swayed by the fact that the borrowings were triggered by assessee's financial needs for personal purposes and, by that logic, the borrowing cannot be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning interest income, but what this approach overlooks is whether the expenditure is incurred for directly contributing to the beginning of or triggering the source of income or whether the expenditure is for protecting, and thus keeping alive, that source of income, in either case it is expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning that income. The assessee indeed required that money, so raised by borrowing against the fixed deposits, for her personal purposes but that's not relevant for the present purposes. The assessee could have gone for premature encashment of bank deposits, and thus ended the source of income itself, as well, but instead of doing so, she resorted to borrowings against the fixed deposit and thus preserved the source of earning. The expenditure so incurred is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning from interest on fixed deposits. We are alive to the fact that in the case of a business assessee, and in a situation in which the borrowings against fixed deposits were resorted to for use in business, consideration for end use of funds so borrowed would be relevant because the interest deduction is claimed as a business deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). That aspect of the matter, however, is academic in the present context as the limited issue for our consideration is whether or not, on the facts before us, the interest on borrowings against the fixed deposits could be said to protect the interest income from fixed deposit interest and thus, incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning such income
Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court)
S. 80-IB: If the undertaking satisfies the conditions for eligibility in the initial year, it must get deduction for 10 years & non-compliance in a subsequent year is irrelevant
There is no indication in s. 80-IB that the conditions stipulated therein has to be fulfilled by the assessee in all the 10 years. When once the benefit of 10 years, commencing from the initial year, is granted, if the undertaking satisfy all these conditions initially, the undertaking is entitled to the benefit of 10 consecutive years. The argument that, in the course of 10 years, if the growth of the industry is fast and it acquires machinery and the total value of the machinery exceeds Rs.1 crore, it ceases to have the said benefit, do not follow from any of the provisions. It is true that there is no express provision indicating either way, what would be the position if the small scale industry ceases to be a small scale industry during the said period of 10 years. Because of that ambiguity, a need for interpretation arises. If we keep in mind the object of the Legislature providing for these incentives and when a period of 10 years is prescribed, that is the period, probably, which is required for any industry to stabilize itself. During that period the industry not only manufactures products, it generates employment and it adds to the wealth of the country. Merely because an industry stabilizes early, makes profits, makes future investment in the said business, and it goes out of the definition of the small scale industry, the benefit u/s 80IB cannot be denied. If such a literal interpretation is placed on the said provion, it would run counter to the very object of granting incentives. It would kill the industry. Therefore keeping in mind the object with which these provisions are enacted, keeping in mind the industrial growth which is required to be achieved, if two interpretations are possible, the courts have to lean in favour of extending the benefit of deduction to an assessee who has availed the opportunity given to him under law and has grown in his business. Therefore we are of the view, if a small scale industry, in the course of 10 years, stabilizes early, makes further investments in the business and it results in it's going outside the purview of the definition of a small scale industry, that should not come in the way of its claiming benefit u/s 80IB for 10 consecutive years, from the initial assessment year
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
CIT vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd (Bombay High Court)
S. 153A: No addition can be made in respect of an unabated assessment which has become final if no incriminating material is found during the search
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
Deepak Gadgil -
contact - 0217-2318152 / 9422068273 / 0217-2319641
Note:- 1)This email message is not meant for those who are not memebers of this group mentioned in the caption.
2) if this mail reaches somebody who is not a member of this group, he should immidiately delete such mail from his computer & report the matter to the moderator of this group.
3) Check the contents of this mail with a proper virus checking programme before opening any attachment.
4) The members of all the mail groups are well advised to verify the authenticity & appropriateness of the contents of this mail, before acting upon the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment