Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category


ITO vs. Varia Pratik (ITAT A’bad)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though s. 292BB comes into force on 1.4.2008 and not from any particular assessment year, it is declaratory, procedural and curative in nature and accordingly the validity of notices issued/served will have to be decided after 31.3.2008 in accordance with the provisions of section 292BB irrespective of the assessment year involved.

ITO vs. Daga Capital (ITAT Mumbai – Special Bench) (1.7MB)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The words “in relation to” in s. 14A encompass not only the direct expense but also the indirect expense which has any relation to the exempt income. The argument that the words contemplate a “direct and immediate connection” between the expenditure and the exempt income cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the argument that s. 14A cannot apply to shares held as stock-in-trade cannot be accepted. The fact that the dividend income is “incidental” to the purchase of shares is also irrelevant. The question as to whether the onus is on the assessee or the AO for bringing an item of expenditure within s. 14A is also irrelevant in view of Rule 8D;

Mittal Tower Premises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 17, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Non-occupancy charges received by a commercial society from its members, even though in excess of 10% of the maintenance charges, are exempt on the principles of mutuality.

Hawkins Cookers vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

For purposes of s. 145A, where an assessee follows the procedure laid down by the ICAI and the tax auditor reports in clause 12(b) of Form 3CD of the Tax Audit Report that no adjustment is required to be made on account of s. 145A, the unutilized modvat credit cannot be added to income.

DCIT vs. ING Investment (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is proved to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis.

Philips Software vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) (4 MB)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The AO/TPO have to satisfy and communicate to the taxpayer which one of the four conditions prescribed in s. 92C (3) are satisfied before applying the transfer pricing provisions and the failure to demonstrate this to the assessee renders the transfer pricing order void

Sony India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 2, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under Rule 10B (2) (c) the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction has to be judged with reference to the contractual terms. Accordingly, the actual transaction, as entered into between the parties, has to be considered and the authorities have no right to re-write the transaction unless it is held that it is sham or bogus or entered into by the parties in bad faith to avoid and evade taxes.

Automated Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) (1.8 MB)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In order to attract the non-discrimination clause in Article 26, mere differential treatment is not enough. The assessee has to show that not only has it been subjected to differential treatment vis-à-vis others but also that the ground for this differentiation in treatment is unreasonable, arbitrary or irrelevant and that the basis of differentiation lacks any coherent relationship with the object sought to be achieved by that provision.

UPS Freight Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

As the 3rd Provio to s. 245 (2A) {restricting the right of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if the delay is not attributable to the assessee} comes into force on 1.10.2008, there is no bar on the Tribunal before that date to grant stay beyond 365 days.

ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 16, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.

Top