Chettinad Builders Vs The DCIT (Madras High Court) (TCA No.261/2017)
In this recent judgment, the question posed before Hon’ble Court dealt with as to whether additional depreciation was allowable on the activity of production of ready mix concrete treating as manufacture in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Court while referring to the provisions in section 2(29BA) which defines "manufacture” held that there can be no doubt that preparation of ready mix concrete results in transformation of stone chips, sand, cement, flyash and other articles into a new and distinct object having a different name, character and use. Once the ready mix concrete is prepared, the ingredients used lose their original character and can never be restored to their original character while answering the question in law in favour of the Appellant.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.F L Smidth Limited (Madras High Court) (TCA No.440/2017)
In this recent judgment, the question posed before Hon’ble Court dealt with as to the correctness of the action of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Court while referring to the various judgments placed before it held that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. A decision rendered in the particular facts and circumstances of a case does not constitute a binding precedent. The Hon’ble Court while further explaining the scope of the penal provision aforementioned held that the initiation of penal proceedings is not automatic and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case at hand, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepting the explanation of the Assessee of bona fide error on the part of the Chartered Accountant and allowing the appeal. The learned Tribunal, in effect, arrived at a clear finding that imposition of penalty was not justified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case while answering the question of law in favour of the respondent.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Late Dr.N.Rangabashyam (Madras High Court) (TCA No.429/2017)
In this recent judgment, the question posed before Hon’ble Court dealt with as to the correctness of the action of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in allowing the claim of exemption from capital gains in terms of the provisions in section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While deciding the above appeal, the Hon’ble Court explained the scope of the provisions in section 260A of the act and held that the right of appeal is not automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by Statute. If the right of appeal conferred by the Statute is limited to cases where there is a substantial question of law, this Court cannot sit in appeal over factual findings by re-weighing and re-analysing the evidence and materials on record.
R.Mani Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court) (WP No.21477/2004)
The extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court was sought in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking waiver of interest imposed in terms of section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble court while granting such waiver as called for held while referring to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes that the circular issued by the Board empowering the Chief Commissioner to consider the waiver petition for waiver of interest under Section 234A as well as 234B would show that even in cases covered by Section 234B and even though these provisions are compensatory in nature, special orders for grant of relaxation could be passed and thus held that the dispute with regard to the division of property was a bonafide dispute which directly relates to the assessbility of the petitioner to tax.
M/s Shivsu Canadian Clear Waters Ltd Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (ITA No.2347/2017)
The validity of re-opening of assessment while assuming jurisdiction in terms of section 147 of the Act was challenged before the Chennai Bench of the ITAT. The Tribunal after detailed discussion held that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2011 and therefore, the Assessing Officer, after scrutinizing the entire material available on record, allowed the claim of the assessee. While then referring to the judgment of the Madras High Court, that ITAt held that In the case before High Court, it was only an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, but in this case it is an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of the return and its enclosures. No tangible or new material came to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequently. In view of the above, in the absence of any tangible material which came to the possession of the Assessing Officer, the proceeding cannot be reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Since the scrutiny proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by an order dated 29.12.2011, in view of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tanmac India.