Achievements  
 
Some landmark cases argued by Sh. S.R. Wadhwa and the tax team
 
  • Union of India v. Star Television News Ltd - ( Supreme Court of India
    Only such proceedings would abate under section 245HA (1) (iv) which had been delayed on account of any reason attributable on part of applicant.

  • Court on Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax - High Court of Delhi
    Prior intimation is to be sent to assessee before making any adjustment of refund under section 245.

  • Balram Kumar Mahendra v. Income-tax Officer - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Change of address can be a reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance of notice under section 143(2) by assessee, and, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed.

  • Umicore Finance, Luxembourg - Authority for Advance Rulings (Income-Tax), New Delhi
    Under section 47A (3) what is deemed to be profit and gain of successor-company is amount of profit or gain arising from transfer of such capital asset not charged earlier; if no profit or gain arose earlier when conversion of firm into a company took place or if there was no transfer at all of capital assets of firm at that point of time, deeming provision under section 47A (3) cannot be invoked to levy capital gains tax.

  • Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anupam Sweets - High Court of Delhi
    In case of the proceedings under section 158BD/158BC, insofar as the assessee who was not the searched company, were without jurisdiction as it could not be said that satisfaction as required under section 158BD had been recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched person.

  • Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-10(1), New Delhi - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Assessee club was not tainted by commerciality and principle of mutuality was applicable to it and hence its income even from interest from banks is found to be covered by principle of mutuality and the same cannot be brought to tax even under provisions of section 115JB.

  • Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-XI v. Batra Bhatta Company - High Court of Delhi
    It is not just a belief of the Assessing Officer that is material for invoking section 147, but such a belief must be based on certain reasons; merely because Assessing Officer feels that issue requires ‘much deeper scrutiny’ is not enough ground for invoking section 147.

  • Keshav Shares & Stocks Ltd v. Income-tax Officer - High Court of Delhi 
    Where Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 147 without first passing a speaking order on objections raised by assessee to issuance of notice under section 148, assessment was liable to be set aside.

  • Rescuwear Corporation - Income-Tax Settlement Commission (SB) 
     In a composite settlement application for several years, where assessment proceedings were pending for some assessment years and were not pending for other years, application can be admitted for those years for which proceedings were pending and can be held as ‘invalid’ for other years; whole of application need not be declared as invalid in such case.

  • Smartchem Technologies Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench
    To test whether benefit derived by assessee by making a payment is of enduring nature, the only point to be considered is whether threat which is perceived at time of agreement/incurring of expenditure will cease to exist after expiry of period or will re-occur and where threat has potential of re-occurring after expiry of period, then benefit derived cannot be said to be of enduring nature.

  • Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. A.K. Khosla, High Court of Madras
    If object of payment is unrelated to relation between employer and employee, it would not fall within expression 'profit in lieu of salary' under section 17(3) (i). Amended provision of section 17(3)(iii) came into effect only from assessment year 2002-03 onwards and same does not have retrospective effect.
 
Some landmark cases argued by Mr. Ajay Wadhwa and the tax team
 
  • Satyam Food Specialities (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench
    Compensation received on relinquishment of right to sue is neither a capital asset nor taxable under section 28.

  • Xerox India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-20, New Delhi - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Assets returned from lease were converted into stock in trade. When any of the said asset was again leased out, then it was recapitalized, assessee would be entitled to depreciation on decapitalised assets Assessee wrote off certain fixed assets in books but no adjustment was made to block of assets as such assets had no scrap value- Assessing Officer while allowing depreciation reduced value of said fixed assets from block of assets. Assessee was entitled to depreciation on block of asset without reducing value of fixed assets written off during year as per the scheme of the Act.

  • Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Nanda- High Court of Delhi
    Since in none of relevant assessment years assessee stayed in India for 182 days or more, he was to be regarded as non-resident and, therefore, amount transferred from his foreign account to domestic account could not be brought to tax by invoking provisions of section 68.

  • Suresh Nanda v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    In order to determine residential status of assessee in India during relevant assessment years, number of days of his forced stay due to untenable impounding of assessee's passport were to be excluded while computing days of his stay in India.

  • Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vardaan Fashion - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Since there was no monetary transaction between assessee and creditor, it could not be said that assessee accepted loan or deposit from creditor in violation of section 269SS; hence penalty levied under section 271D was to be cancelled.

  • Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. ACIT, Circle 3, Noida - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    All the impugned assessment orders passed by the AO were quashed in view of the fact that notice under section 143(2) has been issued beyond the period of one year from the date of filing of the return and hence the assessment u/s 148 was void ab initio.

  • M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Circle-1, Noida - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Departments claim that notice served u/s 143(2) of the Act found factually incorrect and assessments made u/s 148 were quashed.

  • Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad v.Canara Bank, UCO Bank, Punjab & Sindh Bank, State Bank of Patiala,
    The Corporation Bank, Vijaya Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab National Bank - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench Challenge to jurisdiction of CIT (A) by department dismissed. Banks not required to deduct tax at source upon payment of interest on deposits of a statutory authority.

  • Genesis Colors (P.) Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax –IV - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Show-cause notice issued is on one ground and revisional order is passed on an entirely different ground, order cannot be sustained in law.

  • ELEL Hotels & Investments Ltd v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 
    Depreciation allowable on money paid to ITC for premature termination of hotel operating agreement.

  • Prakash Industries Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle, Hissar (Haryana) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    What constitutes a share transaction? Interplay of onus of proof.

  • Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd v.Assistant Director of Income-tax, Intl. Taxation, Circle 2(1), New Delhi - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Under section 6(3) (ii) a company can be said to be a resident in India if during that year, control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in India; and even if a slightest control and management is exercised from outside India, it would not fall within ambit of section 6(3) (ii) and company would be treated as a non-resident.

  • Business India Television International Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-22, New Delhi - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    Since assessee had deducted TDS on salaries paid to employees and had bona fide belief with regard to certain allowances which were claimed to be reimbursement of expenditure incurred by its employees, assessee in terms of provisions of section 201(1) could not be termed to be assessee-in default in respect of short deduction of tax, and, therefore, additional tax under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) could not be charged from assessee.

  • Estel Telecom (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(1) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench
    An assessee who sub-contracts execution of a foreign project or execution of any work forming part of a foreign project, would nonetheless be eligible for deduction under section 80HHB in relation to profits and gains derived by him from business of such a contract.
 

 
     
73104 Times Visited