M/S Earth Stone Group Vs. Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax(ITAT-DEL)(18 April, 2016)

Held: : It is noticed that the assessee is 100% Export Oriented Unit and exporting the goods directly and also through a sister concern, namely, M/s Stone World, proprietorship concern of the partner Sh. Lokesh Arora. The goods which were exported through Sh. Lokesh Arora were directly sent for shipment by the assessee which is evident from the copy of the shipping bill for export placed at page no. 117 of the assessee’s paper book. In the said declaration, the name of exporter is mentioned as “Earth Stone Group” i.e. the assessee vide shipping bill No. 1723123, those goods were sent to the consignee M/s Fitex Trade Networks Road, Present case are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. Vs ACIT. Therefore, by respectfully following the said order, Court set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), particularly when, no deduction u/s 10B has been claimed by the sister concern M/s Stone World through whom export sales were made by the assessee to the overseas buyers. Therefore, it can be said that the export sales directly made to the consignee through the sister concern was the deemed export of the assessee and deduction u/s 10B of the Act was available. The AO to allow the deduction u/s 10B of the Act to the assessee on the export sales made through the sister concern M/s Stone World and accordingly the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. Appeal allowed.

Judgements/Tribunals

Content right to :eJurix

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited Vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors., (HC-Del)(7 Apr, 2016)Limited Vs. Union Of India & Ors.(HC-Delhi)(9 Mar, 2016)

Held:Section 34(1)(b) of the DVAT Act talks only of a Commissioner making an assessment under Section 32 of the DVAT Act, the Court is unable to agree to such a narrow interpretation of the word 'assessment'. Given the context in which it occurs, and the scheme and structure of Section 31(1) of the DVAT Act, a self-assessment would also be another form of assessment. The Assessee was filing monthly returns and, therefore, the limitation for the purposes of Section 34 of the DVAT Act would have to be reckoned from the date of the filing of the return by way of self assessment. Barring the reopening of the assessments for February and March 2010, where the dates of the notices of default assessment were prior to the completion of four years, i.e., 26th March and 23rd April 2014, in respect of all other returns by way of self-assessment made by the Petitioner from April 2009 to January 2010, the re-opening of the assessment was sought to be done on a date after the expiry of the four-year period. There was also no whisper of the determination under Section 84 of the DVAT Act in the case of NEC which, as it transpired, was one of the reasons for reopening the assessments. In other words, the Assessee was not put on notice as to the grounds on which the assessments were sought to be reopened. Writ Petition allowed.

Dish Tv India Limited Vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.(HC-Del)(4 Apr, 2016)

Held:The short affidavit of the Special Commissioner acknowledges that the Assessee's objections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are indeed pending consideration before the OHA. The undisputed fact is that during the pendency of the aforementioned objections, the VATO has again invoked the powers under Sections 32 of the DVAT Act and issued notices of default assessment on 18th November 2015 against the Assessee seeking to 'rectify' and in effect review the assessments for each of the months of AY 2009-10. The said default assessment notices are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions other than W.P. (C) 6510 of 2014. There is no justification for the VATO to have issued notices of default assessment for AY 2009-10 when the objections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are admittedly pending before the OHA and in view of the clear bar under Rule 36B (7) of the DVAT Rules read with Section 74-B of the DVAT Act. For the above reasons, the Court directs that the sum deposited by the Respondent in this Court along with interest accrued thereon should be released by the Registry to the Petitioner Assessee forthwith through an authorized representative. Further each the notices of default assessment issued under Section 32 of the DVAT Act for each of the months of AY 2009-10 are hereby quashed. Writ petition allowed.