With regard to the sting operation carried out by NDTV regarding the role of a defense lawyer (R. K. Anand) and the Special Public Prosecutor (I. U. Khan) in an ongoing Sessions trial commonly called the “BMW case” and the suo motu criminal contempt action undertaken by the High Court, the Court passed strictures against two senior advocates and directed that they should be prohibited from appearing before the Court and subordinate courts for four months and that they should be stripped of their designation as senior advocates. The case discusses important aspects of the law as to when abuse of an advocate and when abuse by an advocate can constitute contempt of the law.
Where the assessee was a co.op society and it and its members entered into a development agreement with a builder pursuant to which Tranferable Development Rights (TDR) entitled to be received under the Development Control Regulations was assigned to the developer for the repairs and redevelopment of the building and the construction of additional floors, held that the TDRs were owned by the flat owners individually and as no consideration for the transfer of the TDRs was received by the assessee society nor any area in the constructed portion was allocated to the assessee society, it was not chargeable to tax. Noted that even in the case of flat owners the Mumbai Bench had held in Jethalal D. Mehta vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 422 that the receipts on sale of TDRs were not chargeable to tax in their hands.
the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.
the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground.
It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatorily imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed.
Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a “joint venture” in the legal sense. It is a contract for “services”.
Against the judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706, a review petition was filed. That petition was dismissed by a division bench of 2 judges. Upon that dismissal, a curative petition was filed. That curative petition has been dismissed by a bench of 5 judges.