No additions for waiver of interest if it hadn’t been allowed as deduction in earlier years

IT: Since benefit or perquisites received only in kind are taxable under section 28(iv), waiver of interest received in cash could not be taxed

No dismissal of rectification request barred by limitation if intimation wasn't served to assessee

IT: Where intimation issued under section 143(1) on 30-6-1999 had not been served on assessee and assessee in March, 2006 having come to know that credit of TDS amount was not properly being granted to it made an application under section 154 on 20-3-2006 seeking rectification of impugned intimation, Assessing Officer was wrong in dismissing rectification application on ground of limitation prescribed under section 154(7)

AO couldn't compute estimated income if no incriminating evidence was found during search

IT: Undisclosed income of block period has to be determined on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents; it is not open for Assessing Officer to compute income on basis of best judgment

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH CONSTITUTION OF CHANDIGARH BENCHES FROM 12/08/2013 TO 14/08/2013

[unable to retrieve full-text content]INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH CONSTITUTION OF CHANDIGARH BENCHES FROM 12/08/2013 TO 14/08/2013 {ad} For more information...

Franchisee agreements are liable to service tax and not VAT; decision of single judge reversed

ST: Franchise agreement where franchisor himself, along with various franchisees, can use trademark of franchisor, there is no transfer of right to use of trademark and it does not amount to 'deemed sale' under article 366(29A)(d); such agreement is franchise service liable to service tax

SEBI can reject a method proposed by Co. to attain min public shareholding of 25% which violates sta

SEBI: Where method proposed by appellant-company to attain minimum public shareholding of 25 per cent was ex-facie in breach of law, SEBI rightly rejected that method in accordance with Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules

Sec. 80G recognition to trust engaged in spreading spirituality and vegetarianism valid

IT : To propogate message, teaching, ideals and philosophy of all religious and spiritual reformers, prophets and leading figures of world including Sikh Gurus with special emphasis on vegetarianism is nothing but a public charitable object within meaning of section 2(15) and, therefore, a trust engaged in aforesaid activities is entitled to renewal of exemption under section 80G(5)

Business activity must be incidental to shipping operations to apply article 8A of India-Netherlands

IT/ILT: To avail benefit of article 8A of Indo-Netherlands DTAA, business activity must be incidental to operations of ships in international traffic

Payment of share premium to AE would be at ALP if it is proved that shares commanded premium in open

IT/ILT : To show that share premium paid by assessee-company to its subsidiaries was at arm's length, assessee had to prove that shares actually commanded such premium in open market in terms of fair value

No additions for undisclosed investment if seized docs didn't reflect purchase price of asset

IT: Where alleged seized documents did not reflect cost/purchase price of land, addition under section 69B on ground that assessee paid cash over and above amount recorded in books of account could not be sustained

Rejecting ST refund claim doesn't require issuing of show-cause notice as assessee has an appellate

ST : Show-cause notice is not necessary before rejecting claim for refund since right to appeal is available to assessee when refund claim is rejected

CBEC's 19 clarifications on amnesty scheme - Scheme to apply registration-wise

ST : Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - CBEC Clarifies on 19 Issues - Mere Pendency of Summon Without Seeking Presence/Documents not Bars Availment of Scheme - Benefit may be Claimed Registration-Wise

No TDS default if tax is eventually deducted by agent from payment made by him on behalf of assessee

IT: Where assessee paid amount to its agent without deducting tax at source, who in turn, deducted tax at source while making payment to advertisers on behalf of assessee, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not called for

SEBI puts a cap on quantum of buy back from open market; should be less than 15% of capital and free

SEBI : SEBI (Buy Back of Securities)(Amendment) Regulations, 2013 - Amendment in Regulations 4, 14, 15, 16 & 19 and Insertion of Regulations 15A & 15B

Customs Circular No 30/2013 dated 05-08-2013

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Excise & Custom

Circular No. 30/2013 - Customs

North Block, New Delhi,

Dated the 5^th August, 2013.

To,

All Chief Commissioner of Customs/Customs (Prev),

All Chief Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise.

All Directors General of CBEC.

All Commissioners of Customs / Customs (Prev).

All Commissioners of Customs (Appeals).

All Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise.

All Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise. (Appeals).

Subject : Provisional release of export - goods detained for investigation -reg.

Sir/Madam,

Attention is invited to the Board Circular No. 01/2011-Customs dated 04.01.2011 regarding provisional release of export goods that are detained or seized. The said Circular was issued with the objective of expediting the clearance of export goods and to ensure that where permissible by law, exports should not get unduly delayed, thereby causing congestion in ports as well as delays in fulfillment of export orders. Thus, it was instructed that provisional release of export goods that are suspected of being mis-declared or where declaration is to be confirmed by further enquiry / test or detained/seized for mis-declaration of quantity / value / description should be given on execution of Bond and suitable security to cover the redemption fine and penalty (Para 4 of Board Circular No. 01/2011-Customs dated 04.01.2011 ). Further, continued detention of export goods in excess of three days must be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Customs.

2. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the above instructions are not being implemented by certain field formations and exporting community is aggrieved by the long detention of exports goods. The matter has been raised in many forums and the issue of congestion in ports has also been highlighted by Inter-Ministerial Committee for boosting exports from Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector, which pointed out that, besides the Boards aforementioned instructions, paragraph 2.42 of the Foreign Trade Policy also provides that export consignments shall not be withheld / delayed for any reason.


3. The Board has re-examined the subject matter. The view is that there can be no justification to hold up export consignments for long periods unless the export goods are prohibited under Customs Act, 1962 or ITC (HS) Policy. Essentially genuine exports must be facilitated and there should be no delays or hold ups of export goods. Therefore, the Board strongly reiterates the instruction dated 04.01.2011 referred above. It shall be the responsibility of Commissioner of Customs concerned to ensure strict compliance of these instructions. Needless to state any deviation or lapse shall be proceeded against by the Board.


4. A suitable Public Notice for information of trade and Standing Order for guidance of staff may be issued.

Yours faithfully,

(S.C. Ganger)

Under Secretary (Customs-III)

Fax: 011 23092173

F. No. 401/179/2009-Cus.III

AIFs can deviate from registered category if no investment was made yet in this category, SEBI clari

SEBI : SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 - Application for Change in Category of Alternative Investment Fund

IRDA announces Regulations on licensing of banks as insurance brokers

INSURANCE : Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Licensing of Banks as Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2013

CIT Vs. PEARL INTERCONTINENTAL

$~28. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1545/2010 Date of decision: 6th August, 2013 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus PEARL INTERCONTINENTAL ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) emanates from order dated 13 th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of Pearl Intercontinental Limited and relates to Assessment Year 1994-95. 2. By order dated 16th August, 2011, the following two questions of law were framed:- "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law deleting the addition of Rs.82,73,328/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the exports to M/s. Taj ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 1 of 6 AL Khaleej General Trading Company, Dubai as bogus and consequentially treating the income to the assessable as "income from other sources"? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.59.87 lacs made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure, incurred by assessee in respect of manufacturing activity carried out by M/s. MS Shoes East Ltd. for and on behalf of the assessee." 3. The first question is factual and relates to whether or not the assessee had made exports to Taj AL Khaleej General Trading Company, Dubai and whether the sale proceeds amounting to Rs.82,73,328/- were genuine or bogus. 4. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 31 st March, 2000 has stated that the Sheikh to whom alleged supplies were made was not produced by the respondent-assessee for cross-examination to check authenticity and veracity of the Sheikh's affidavit dated 13 th January, 1997 and contents of letter dated 31st March, 1999 received from the office of Director General of Foreign Trade. He held that the sales made to Taj AL Khaleej General Trading Company were not genuine. We note that similar additions on sales to Taj AL Khaleej General Trading Company, Dubai were made for the earlier Assessment Years 1993-94, but were deleted by the tribunal in the case ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 2 of 6 of the assessee and in the case of sister concerns of the assessee. Revenue had preferred appeals in the said cases before the High Court. The High Court dismissed these appeals by a detailed order dated 28th September, 2012 holding that the factual findings recorded by the tribunal were not perverse. The decision of the High Court dated 28th September, 2012 is in ITA No. 999/2006 in the case of M/s M.S. International Limited, ITA No. 210/2007 in the case of M/s M.S. Shoes East Limited and ITA No. 575/2007 in the case of M/s Pearl Intercontinental Limited. 5. This decision is applicable to the present year also. The High Court while disposing of the appeal has referred to various documentary evidence, which were filed before the Assessing Officer, which prove that in fact transaction had taken place and was genuine. These included original bank certificate from UAE showing bills received by the said bank drawn on the importer and the fact that the respondent-assessee was paid, export orders were confirmed by the importer and the original statement showing credit limit of the importer issued by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India etc. The Sheikh had also explained the reason why he had earlier made a different statement. In view of the aforesaid position, we answer the first question in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue holding that the findings recorded by the tribunal do ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 3 of 6 not require any interference on the ground that they are perverse. 6. On the second question, we find that the assessment order is cryptic. The findings recorded therein read as under:- "In the original assessment the assessee claimed to have manufactured soles for its sister concern. In the year under consideration also, the assessee has claimed to have manufactured 29,93,999 pairs of PVC soles. In the assessment order for assessment year 1993-94, the manufacturing cost of PVC soles have been worked out at Rs.2/- per pair. Taking this into consideration manufacturing cost for this year is Rs.59,87,998/-. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence in support of its contention that it has utilised the machinery of its sister concern i.e. MS Shoes East Ltd also as it is not supported by evidence its contention is not acceptable. But it is also a fact that the company have incurred manufacturing expenses which was not accounted in its books. Therefore, an addition of Rs.59,87,998/- is being made to the income of the assessee." 7. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not agree with the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and deleted the addition observing that similar addition had been made in the earlier year, i.e., Assessment Year 1993-94 but was deleted by the tribunal recording as under:- "The next common issue for consideration is with regard to the addition on account of unexplained expenditure in the hand of PIL and a corresponding addition of unaccounted receipts in the hands of MSSE. ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 4 of 6 On this issue we find that there is no dispute with regard to the use of manufacturing facilities by M/s. PIL. The MD of MSSE has filed an affidavit in the proceedings whereby he has affirmed that they 1-Java allowed M/s. PIL to use the manufacturing facilities and that they did not charge any fee from them as both of them were companies belonging to the same group. This affidavit has not been adverted to by the revenue authorities. The Assessing Officer has however made a passing reference to the affidavit without making any efforts to disprove the contents of this affidavit. In the light of this affidavit, we are of the view that the first requirement of the provisions of S.69 C viz., that the assessee should have incurred an expenditure is not prima facie satisfied. In the case of MSSE, there is no evidence to show that they received Rs.34 lacs from PIL. On the other hand we have on affidavit of the MD affirming that MSSE did not receive any money from PIL for allowing it to use its manufacturing facilities. The addition in the hands of MSSE is therefore not called for. Accordingly ground no. 2 in the case of MSSE and ground no. 7 in the case of PIL are allowed." 8. By the impugned order the tribunal had affirmed the findings recorded by the CIT(Appeals). 9. The findings recorded by the tribunal relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act are factual. We notice that the Assessing Officer did not elaborate and give detailed reasons or grounds making the said addition. Order of the Assessing Officer is brief, devoid of details and indicates the half- hearted attempt to make the addition. The case and the stand of the ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 5 of 6 respondent-assessee was that they had used machinery of their sister concern and had not paid any money for the same. No further attempt was made by the Assessing Officer to verify the facts whether the sister concern had the requisite machinery or not and whether the electricity bills of the said sister concern justify the stand of the respondent-assessee. Similar disallowance was made in the Assessment Year 1993-94 by the Assessing Officer but was deleted by the tribunal. Revenue had preferred an appeal before the High Court being ITA No. 575/2007. The said appeal was admitted to hearing on 3rd October, 2008, but no specific question of law for the similar addition made and deleted under Section 69C was framed. The question of law as framed related to deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of alleged export of goods worth Rs.4,36,38,057/-. 10. We do not think that the decision of the tribunal on the second question can be categorised and treated as perverse. Accordingly, we answer the second question in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue. The appeal is disposed of. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. AUGUST 06, 2013 VKR ITA No. 1545/2010 Page 6 of 6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI Vs. SH. YASHIMITSU ZAUTSU

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 08.07.2013 Decided on: 31.07.2013 + ITA 379/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ....Appellant versus SH. SASHI MUKUNDAN ..... Respondent + ITA 387/2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ...Appellant versus MR. SHORT DONALD ..... Respondent + ITA 212/2009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant versus MR. FUMIO GOTO ..... Respondent + ITA 15/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIV .....Appellant versus MR. DUNCAN ETHERINGTION ..... Respondent + ITA 351/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. YASHIMITSU ZAUTSU ..... Respondent + ITA 408/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. IKUJU YABUKI ..... Respondent + ITA 450/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 1 versus SHRI TOSHIHORU SUNAHARA ..... Respondent + ITA 534/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SOJITZ CORPORATION AS AGENT ..... Respondent + ITA 635/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. YASHIMITSU ZAUTSU ..... Respondent + ITA 1354/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. JASWINDER SINGH .... Respondent + ITA 1556/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. MOHAMMAD RAUFF NABI BAX ..... Respondent + ITA 1561/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. MOHAMMAD RAUFF NABI BAX ..... Respondent + ITA 370/2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus GORAM WESTERBERG ..... Respondent + ITA 1557/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. JOHN TRIPLETT ..... Respondent ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 2 + REV. PET. 708/2011 IN ITA 1369/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. FUMIO GOTO ..... Respondent + ITA 761/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. K.P.HOSTELLEY ..... Respondent + ITA 798/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. YOSHIO KUBO ..... Respondent + ITA 800/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. YOSHIO KUBO ..... Respondent + ITA 680/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MOHAN RAI ..... Respondent + ITA 681/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MOHAN RAI ..... Respondent + ITA 1215/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XIV ..... Appellant versus MR. GHORAYEB EMILE, C/O AIR FRANCE ..... Respondent + ITA 494/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 3 versus SH. HIROYASU KITADA ..... Respondent + ITA 508/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. HIROYASU KITADA ..... Respondent + ITA 577/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. SCOTT R BAYMAN ..... Respondent + ITA 631/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. VENKAT RAO SHRIDHAR ..... Respondent + ITA 699/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. JEROME SUDAN ..... Respondent + ITA 1912/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. PANKAJ SHAH ..... Respondent + ITA 528/2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MARCH FRANCOIS JEAN SOULACROUP ..... Respondent .....Appearance Through: Mr. Rajiv Tyagi with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Gyanendra Sharma and Ms. Renu Narula, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 379/07. ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 4 Mr. Pawan Sharma with Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocates, in ITA 15/2010. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 450/10 & ITA 534/10. Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Proxy for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 1354/10. Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Ms. Roohina Dua and Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocates, in ITA 577/10. Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates, in ITA 1912/10. Ms. Shreya Verma, Advocate, for Respondent in ITA 681/07 & ITA 1215/08. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Manomeet Dalal and Ms. Preity Goel, Advocates, for Respondents in ITA 212/09, ITA 1556/10, 1561/10, 1369/10, 370/11, 494/10, 508/10 and ITA 631/10. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. For detailed judgment please see ITA 441/2003 titled YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) R.V. EASWAR (JUDGE) JULY 31, 2013 ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 5

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI Vs. SOJITZ CORPORATION AS AGENT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 08.07.2013 Decided on: 31.07.2013 + ITA 379/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ....Appellant versus SH. SASHI MUKUNDAN ..... Respondent + ITA 387/2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ...Appellant versus MR. SHORT DONALD ..... Respondent + ITA 212/2009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant versus MR. FUMIO GOTO ..... Respondent + ITA 15/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIV .....Appellant versus MR. DUNCAN ETHERINGTION ..... Respondent + ITA 351/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. YASHIMITSU ZAUTSU ..... Respondent + ITA 408/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. IKUJU YABUKI ..... Respondent + ITA 450/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 1 versus SHRI TOSHIHORU SUNAHARA ..... Respondent + ITA 534/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SOJITZ CORPORATION AS AGENT ..... Respondent + ITA 635/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. YASHIMITSU ZAUTSU ..... Respondent + ITA 1354/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. JASWINDER SINGH .... Respondent + ITA 1556/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. MOHAMMAD RAUFF NABI BAX ..... Respondent + ITA 1561/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. MOHAMMAD RAUFF NABI BAX ..... Respondent + ITA 370/2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus GORAM WESTERBERG ..... Respondent + ITA 1557/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. JOHN TRIPLETT ..... Respondent ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 2 + REV. PET. 708/2011 IN ITA 1369/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. FUMIO GOTO ..... Respondent + ITA 761/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. K.P.HOSTELLEY ..... Respondent + ITA 798/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. YOSHIO KUBO ..... Respondent + ITA 800/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. YOSHIO KUBO ..... Respondent + ITA 680/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MOHAN RAI ..... Respondent + ITA 681/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MOHAN RAI ..... Respondent + ITA 1215/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XIV ..... Appellant versus MR. GHORAYEB EMILE, C/O AIR FRANCE ..... Respondent + ITA 494/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 3 versus SH. HIROYASU KITADA ..... Respondent + ITA 508/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. HIROYASU KITADA ..... Respondent + ITA 577/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. SCOTT R BAYMAN ..... Respondent + ITA 631/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. VENKAT RAO SHRIDHAR ..... Respondent + ITA 699/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus MR. JEROME SUDAN ..... Respondent + ITA 1912/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. PANKAJ SHAH ..... Respondent + ITA 528/2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... Appellant versus SH. MARCH FRANCOIS JEAN SOULACROUP ..... Respondent .....Appearance Through: Mr. Rajiv Tyagi with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Gyanendra Sharma and Ms. Renu Narula, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 379/07. ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 4 Mr. Pawan Sharma with Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocates, in ITA 15/2010. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 450/10 & ITA 534/10. Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Proxy for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 1354/10. Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Ms. Roohina Dua and Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocates, in ITA 577/10. Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates, in ITA 1912/10. Ms. Shreya Verma, Advocate, for Respondent in ITA 681/07 & ITA 1215/08. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Manomeet Dalal and Ms. Preity Goel, Advocates, for Respondents in ITA 212/09, ITA 1556/10, 1561/10, 1369/10, 370/11, 494/10, 508/10 and ITA 631/10. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. For detailed judgment please see ITA 441/2003 titled YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) R.V. EASWAR (JUDGE) JULY 31, 2013 ITA 379/2007 & connected matters Page 5