Home › › Page 123

Search Results For: Domestic Tax

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 22, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) S. 48: Interest paid on moneys borrowed to acquire assets cannot be treated as the 'cost of acquisition' of the asset, (ii) S. 41(1): Unclaimed liabilities are deemed to have been remitted/ ceased and are taxable in the year of discovery by AO

The interest cost is toward the retention of the borrowing and, concomitantly, the retention or the holding of the asset under reference, i.e., is a function of the holding period. It is, thus, rightly described as a holding cost or a period cost, depending upon how one may look at it. This difference is again of relevance in-as-much as the asset may be sold/realized without the repayment of the debt, so that the interest cost continues independent of the asset. Again, the debt may be repaid/liquidated, extinguishing the interest cost, while the holding of the asset continues. That is, even the holding cost relationship is not automatic or follows as a natural corollary. The two, i.e., the interest cost and cost of the asset, are in any case independent of each other

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 11(1)(a): Charitable institutions are eligible to a blanket deduction of 15% of the gross receipts without being required to satisfy any condition

The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.L.N Rao Charitable Trust reported in 216 ITR 697(SC) clearly held that there is a blanket exemption with regard to the 25% (now 15%) of gross receipts as per second part of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. This exemption of 15% is not dependent on any other condition except that the trust or society should be registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The only issue to be examined here is whether the provisions of section 11(1) (a) and 11(2) have been since amended and if so, whether the aforesaid decision would apply to the amended provisions also?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/11: Before any activity can be branded as being in the nature of trade or commerce, the AO has to demonstrate the intention of parties backed with facts and figures of carrying out activities with profit motive. Mere surplus from any activity which has been undertaken to achieve the dominant object does not imply that the same is run with profit motive. The intention has to be gathered from circumstances which compelled the carrying on the activity

The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for the welfare of people by disseminating knowledge in various fields in order to uplift the social consciousness of the society at large. Before any activity can be branded as being in the nature of trade or commerce, the AO has to demonstrate the intention of parties Backed with facts and figures of carrying out activities with profit motive. Mere surplus from any activity, which undisputedly has been undertaken to achieve the dominant object, does not imply that the same is run with profit motive. The intention has to be gathered from circumstances which compelled the carrying on an activity

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Scope of proviso to s. 2(15) restricting deduction for charitable institutions explained

The expression “trade”, “commerce” or “business”, as occurring in the first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, must be read in the context of the intent in purported of Section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act does not purported to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee and the object of introducing first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1990-91 to 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
'On-Money' received by a builder on sale of flats held as stock-in-trade is taxable only in the year of sale of the flats and not in the year of offer/ disclosure

In the light of the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Motilal C.Patel and Co. reported at 173 ITR 666 (Guj.), such amount can be subjected to tax when sale-deed is actually executed. Since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the amount would become for the assessment year in which the sale transaction is completed. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that sale deeds were executed in the year subsequent to the year under appeal. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent, we are of the considered view that the authorities below were not justified in taxing the amount including ‘on money’ during the year under appeal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(5)(d): Loss from trading in derivatives is not a speculation loss and can be set-off against normal business profits

Now question arises as to whether the loss suffered by the assessee on derivative was to be treated as a speculative loss or to be set off against the regular business profit. Explanation to clause (d) of Sub-section (5) to Section 43 of the Act provides that eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives would not be deemed to be speculative transaction. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares & securities and has incurred loss from dealing in derivatives (shares futures)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2) and 153C notices issued in the name of the non-existent amalgamating company are void and render the assessment order null and void (entire case law discussed)

For making the assessment, it is absolutely essential that the person so to be assessed should be in existence at the time of making the assessment. In the present case the assessment has been framed by the AO on a date when the present assessee was not in existence therefore, the assessment framed by the AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2010 was not valid

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IC: The benefit of “substantial expansion” is applicable to units which were in existence at the time of announcement of scheme i.e. in AY 2004-05. Assesses who installed new units during this period and are now going for substantial expansion are not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IC

If interpretation given by the assessee is to be accepted, the provision would become discriminatory for two classes of undertakings i .e. new units and old units. Because the old units would be entitled to 100% deduct ion on expansion for first five years and 25% thereafter whereas the new units would become entitled to deduction for 100% for first five years and again @ 100% on substantial expansion. Such discriminatory intention cannot be imputed to the Legislature.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: , ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(i): As there is no requirement in the Act to deduct TDS on purchases made from Indian residents, imposing such a condition while making payments to non-residents violates the non-discrimination provision in Article 24 of the DTAA

Article 24 provides in unequivocal terms that for the purposes of determining the taxable profits of an Indian enterprise, any disbursements made to a Japanese enterprise shall be deductible in the same manner as if it had been made to an Indian resident. When we examine the TDS provisions, it is noticed that no provision under the Chapter XVII of the Act stipulates for deduction of tax at source from payment made for the purchases made from an Indian resident. This position when contrasted with purchases made from a non-resident, imposes liability on the purchaser for deducting tax at source under section 195, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. When we compare an Indian enterprise purchasing goods from an Indian party vis-a-vis from a Japanese party, there is possibility of an obvious discrimination in terms of disallowance of purchase consideration under section 40(a)(i) in so far as the purchases from a Japanese enterprise are concerned. It is this discrimination which is sought to be remedied by para 3 of Article 24

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C: Law on treating purchases as "bogus" because the supplier is treated as a "hawala" dealer by the VAT authorities explained

The AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs.1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. AO made the addition as the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. It was a good starting point for making further investigation and taken it to logical end. However, the addition is not sustainable as the purchases had been made through A/c payee cheques that were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee ….

Read more ›