| 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: | |
Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.
| 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.
| 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.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 23, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by …
CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court) Read More »
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 23, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
While computing normal profits which do not involve Ch VI-A relief, an assessee is entitled not to claim depreciation. However, where deduction under Ch VI-A is claimed depreciation is mandatory.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 19, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where the Government formulated a scheme of subsidy to encourage the setting up of sugar factories and to make them viable under which new sugar factories were entitled to a subsidy in the form of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and excise duty rebate thereon which could only be used for repayment of loans taken for the unit and the question arose whether such subsidy was taxable HELD, in determining whether the subsidy is capital or revenue, the “purpose” test had to be adopted. The source of the subsidy, its form and the point of time when it is paid are irrelevant. On facts, held, following Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy was capital in nature.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 19, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where the assessee had filed a SLP in the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the AAR without first filing a writ petition in the High Court, it was directed to withdraw the SLP and file a writ petition.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 19, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
The s. 197 proceedings did not create any embargo because the order had worked itself out and in any event the s. 197 order was a tentative measure for TDS and did not in anyway fetter the jurisdiction of the AAR.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 19, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
In order to consider the meaning of the term “make available” in Article 12 of the India-Canada DTAA, one can have regard to the India-USA DTAA. The term requires that the service provider should also make his technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc., known to the recipient of the service so as to equip him to independently perform the technical function himself in future, without the help of the service provider. In other words, payment of consideration would be regarded as ‘fee for technical / included services’ only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied.
| 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.
Recent Comments