Month: March 2015

Archive for March, 2015


ACIT vs. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar (ITAT Panaji)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): If an amount becomes taxable due to a retrospective amendment, payments prior to the amendment cannot be disallowed for want of TDS

This is a fact that the retrospective amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2010 was not in existence at the time when the Assessee had made the payments. The Assessee cannot be penalized for performing an impossible task of deducting TDS in accordance with the law which was brought into the statute book much after the point of time when the tax deduction obligation was to be discharged

ACIT vs. Bhavook Chandraprakash Tripathi (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) cannot be followed but Q whether the second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective or not requires to be considered by the AO

The legal argument that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013 to provide that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act would not be made if the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act) is retrospective in nature as it has been introduced to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardships to the tax payers requires to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Shubhmangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Disclosing income but classifying it under a wrong head amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars and attracts penalty

The assessee’s argument supra of the same being only a differential treatment of the very same, i.e., rental, income, so that there has been thus neither any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, though appealing, is misconceived. The reason is simple. Yes, the assessee has apparently stated the quantum and nature of the income correctly. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not only qua the misstatement of fact/s but also of law

DCIT vs. KDA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Companies, if authorized by the MoA & AoA, are competent to make and receive gifts. Natural love and affection is a not necessary requirement for a gift. The gift is neither taxable as income s. 56 (pre-amendment) nor as capital gain nor as income u/s.2(22)(e) nor u/s.115JB

Three elements are essential in determining whether or not a gift has been made, a) delivery. b) donative intent,’ and c) acceptance by the donee. Companies are competent to make and receive gifts and natural love and affection are not necessary requirement. Only requirement for company is to make gifts as per respective memorandum and article of association, which authorize the company for the same

Queens Educational Society vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(23C)(v) & (vi): Mere surplus does not mean institution is existing for making profit. The predominant object test must be applied. The AO must verify the activities of the institution from year to year

The 13th proviso to Section 10(23C) is of great importance in that assessing authorities must continuously monitor from assessment year to assessment year whether such institutions continue to apply their income and invest or deposit their funds in accordance with the law laid down. Further, it is of great importance that the activities of such institutions be looked at carefully. If they are not genuine, or are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which approval has been given, such approval and exemption must forthwith be withdrawn. All these cases are disposed of making it clear that revenue is at liberty to pass fresh orders if such necessity is felt after taking into consideration the various provisions of law contained in Section 10(23C) read with Section 11 of the Income Tax Act

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of Special Bench verdict in L. G. Electronics are not binding on the assessee or the Revenue. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration because the legal standards or ratio accepted and applied by the Tribunal was erroneous

Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23rd January, 2013 in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd (supra) are not binding on the assesse or the Revenue. The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. We disagree with the Revenue and do not accept the overbearing and orotund submission that the exercise to separate “routine” and “non-routine” AMP or brand building exercise by applying “bright line test” of non-comparables should be sanctioned and in all cases, costs or compensation paid for AMP expenses would be “NIL”, or at best would mean the amount or compensation expressly paid for AMP expenses. It would be conspicuously wrong and incorrect to treat the segregated transactional value as “NIL” when in fact the two AEs had treated the international transactions as a package or a single one and contribution is attributed to the aggregate package. Unhesitatingly, we add that in a specific case this criteria and even zero attribution could be possible, but facts should so reveal and require. To this extent, we would disagree with the majority decision in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This would be necessary when the arm‘s length price of the controlled transaction cannot be adequately or reliably determined without segmentation of AMP expenses

Deepi Arora vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though u/s 80-IA(5), the profits of the eligible unit has to be computed on the ‘stand alone’ principle, in a case where the assessee also has non-business income, the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) has to be set off against the eligible profits before computing s. 80-IA deduction

The assessee’s manner of computing Gross Total Income, though mathematically leading to the same result, i.e., in terms of net taxable income, is incorrect and not in conformity with either the terms of the provisions or the scheme of the Act. There is, in fact, no scope for any vacillation; the same being basic to the scheme of the Act, with the apex court in Synco Industries Ltd 299 ITR 444 (SC) explaining the manner in which the GTI is to be computed, so that independent of the provision of s. 80-I(6) (or s. 80-IA(5)), all other applicable provisions, including ss. 32(2) & s. 72, would apply in computing such income

IDBI Capital Market Services Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Mark-to-market loss on interest rate swap contracts is not a notional loss, (ii) Benefit against s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance conferred in Kotak Securities 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has to be extended to cases where ROI was filed pre-delivery of the verdict

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that in these circumstances if both the parties for nearly a decade proceeded on the footing that section 194J is not attracted, then in the assessment year in question, no fault can be found with the assessee in not deducting tax at source under section 194J of the Act and consequently, no action could be taken under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As the Return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 14/08/2009 and this decision of the Hon’ble was pronounced on 21/10/2011. Thus, the assessee had already filed the return of income and the time period for deducting tax at source was also lapsed. Considering these peculiar facts, in our considered opinion no disallowance on this account should be made for the year under consideration

Chemfert Traders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271D/ 271E: If assessee's plea about compulsion to pay/ receive loans in cash is not disputed, the violation of s. 269SS/269T is deemed to be bonafide and does not attract penalty

It is also not mentioned in the penalty order that the aforementioned amount taken by the assessee in violation of section 269SS and repayment thereof in violation of section 269T was not bonafide transaction and the same was made with a view to evade tax

Bharat Dana Bera vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 41(1)/68: Failure to establish genuineness of old liabilities means that there is a remission/ cessation of such liabilities

The assessee failed to establish the genuineness of these liabilities by producing supporting evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in the books of account would not establish the genuineness of liabilities

Top