Month: February 2010

Archive for February, 2010


CIT vs. Sona Koya Steering Systems (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 25, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The effect of s. 80-I (6) is that the deduction has to be computed as if the industrial undertaking were the only source of income of the assessee. Each industrial undertaking is to be treated separately and independently. It is only those industrial undertakings which have a profit or gain which have to be considered for computing the deduction. The loss making industrial undertaking would not come into the picture at all. The loss of one such industrial undertaking cannot be set off against the profit of another such industrial undertaking to arrive at a computation of the quantum of deduction that is to be allowed to the assessee u/s 80-I (1)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation of the belief by the AO that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The AO must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds to issue a notice u/s 147. The reasons which are recorded by the AO for reopening an assessment are the only reasons which can be considered when the formation of the belief is impugned. The recording of reasons distinguishes an objective from a subjective exercise of power. The requirement of recording reasons is a check against arbitrary exercise of power. The validity of the reopening has to be decided on the basis of the reasons recorded and on those reasons alone. The reasons recorded while reopening the assessment cannot be allowed to grow with age and ingenuity, by devising new grounds in replies and affidavits not envisaged when the reasons for reopening an assessment were recorded

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

TRF Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The position in law is well-settled. After 1.4.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. When a bad debt occurs, the bad debt account is debited and the customer’s account is credited, thus, closing the account of the customer. In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from Sundry Debtors.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

G.K. Ramamurthy vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 10(38) was inserted with the object to grant exemption to LTCG as tax has already been levied on a different footing (STT). The revenue’s contention that long term capital loss should be adjusted against exempt LTCG will be contrary to the intention, object and purpose of enacting s. 10 (38). Further, the revenue’s view will result in absurdity if the facts are reversed because then LTCG earned before 1.10.2004 (which is taxable) will be eligible for set off against (exempt) long term capital loss suffered after 1.10.2004. This will result in a loss from an exempt source being set off against taxable gain which is contrary to law.

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Dynamic Orthopedics vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 17, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The law laid down in Malayala Manorama 300 ITR 251 {that (i) Schedule VI does not create any obligation to provide for any depreciation much less for depreciation at Schedule XIV rates, (ii) As per the Company Law Board Circular the rates in Schedule XIV are the minimum rates and a company can provide for higher rates and (iii) Schedule XIV itself contemplates that depreciation can be provided at rates different from the Schedule rates} needs re-consideration because s. 115J by a deeming fiction legislatively only incorporates provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act and not sections 205, 350 or 355. Once a company, whether private or public, falls within the ambit of it being a MAT company, s. 115J applies and is required to prepare its Profit & loss account only in terms of Parts II and III of Schedule VI. By the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, the linkage between depreciation as per Rule 5 and the Companies Act have been expressly de-linked and the rates are also different.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

The Totgars’ Cooperative vs. ITO (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 11, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The interest on surplus invested in short-term deposits, not being attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to the members or marketing of agricultural produce of the members, is assessable as “other income” and not as “business profits”. The words “the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business” attributable to one of the activities specified in s. 80P (2)(a) mean that the source of income is relevant and that the income must be “operational income”.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Scientific Atlanta vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 10A allows a deduction of the “profits and gains derived by the undertaking from the export of computer software” “from the total income of the assessee”. The effect is that the deduction has to be made at the stage of computing the income under head “Profits & gains” and not at the stage of computing the gross total income. Consequently, the losses of a non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the profits of an eligible unit and are eligible to be set-off against other income or to be carried forward.

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

BBC Worldwide vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 7, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In Circular No. 23 of 1969 dated 23rd July 1969 the CBDT has held that if a non resident’s sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising out of the transaction will be limited to the amount of profit which is attributable to the agent’s services provided that non-resident’s business activities in India are wholly channeled through its agent, the contracts to sell are made outside India and sales are made on a principle-to-principle basis. It has been held that in the assessment of the amount of profits, a deduction will be given for the expenses incurred, including the agent’s commission. Accordingly, if the agent’s commission fully represents the value of the profit attributable to his service, nothing further can be assessed in the hands of the non-resident

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. AIMIL Limited (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though the revenue has argued that a distinction is to be made between “employers’ contribution” and “employees’ contribution” and that employees’ contribution being in the nature of trust money in the hands of the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction if not paid on or before the due date specified in the PF etc law, the scheme of the Act is that employees’ contribution is treated as income u/s 2 (24) (x) on receipt by the assessee and allowed as a deduction u/s 36 (1) (va) on making deposit with the concerned authorities. S. 43B (b) stipulates that such deduction would be permissible only on actual payment. The assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down in Vinay Cement

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 4, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

While notice u/s 143 (2) is not necessary if the AO accepts the return as filed, the notice within the prescribed time is mandatory if the AO proposes to make an assessment u/s 158BC r.w.s143 (3). Omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, the requirement of notice u/s 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. If the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of s. 143 (2), the legislature would have indicated that.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court