Month: July 2019

Archive for July, 2019


Kalpana Ashwin Shah v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)- 20% of the disputed demand – Consideration is not received cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending in appeal . [ S. 220(6)]

Global Estate v. CIT ( 2020 ) 114 taxman .com 96 (SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 80IB(10): Housing project – Stay of judgement in CIT v. Global Reality(2015) 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut -off date, does not satisfy the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder hence not entitle to exemption . [ S.80IB(10)(a) ]

Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT( 2019) 416 ITR 1/ 265 Taxman 413/ 309 CTR 321/180 DTR 97 (SC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial : From the judgement in CIT v Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd ( 2006) 282 ITR 209/ 204 CTR 198 (Cal) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Deposit -Subscription receipt -The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed-.Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts-.The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant-.The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account .[ S.145 ]

Innovative Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 868 / 182 DTR 20 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Transit mixer mounted on vehicle eligible for higher rate of depreciation-Trucks on which said RMC was mounted for transporting it to construction site –Not eligible for higher depreciation. [S. 32(1)(iia)]

Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 833/ 201 TTJ 132 /( 2020 ) 191 DTR 325 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Relief for poor does not necessarily mean giving something free of cost to poor and it also includes providing them things at a concessional rate-Social objective of providing plots and sites to economically weaker section of society at affordable and reasonable rates-Held to be charitable purpose–Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15)]

Opinder Singh Virk Pravesh Kumar Sharma. v. ITO (2019) 176 ITD 863 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 10(37) : Capital gains – Agricultural land – Interest received on enhanced compensation-Entitle to exemption. [S.45(5), Land Acquisition Act, S. 28]

Credit Suisse AG v. DCIT (IT) (2019) 176 ITD 873 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Dubai based branch a foreign bank, received referral charges from its Indian Branch for referring a resident client to Indian branch for bringing out issue of convertible bonds- Not liable to tax in India as fee for technical services- Transaction with head office-Interest paid- Neither deductible nor chargeable – DTAA-India- Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(i), Art. 7, 12]

ULO Systems LLC v. DCIT IT (2019) 176 ITD 805/ 200 TTJ 321 / 179 DTR 97(Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection – Income from grouting to be taxable income arising out of a Fixed Place Permanent establishment-DTAA-India–UAE. [Art. 5]

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. ACIT( 2019) 201 TTJ 871 /178 ITD 18 / 73 ITR 670 / 184 DTR 393(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 194B : Deduction at source-Winning from lottery-Cross word puzzle -stake money–Money paid to horse owners for winning races The position of TDS on ‘stake money’ has not changed even after amendment in S. 194B of the Act by Finance Act, 2001 and the position prior to amendment continues to prevail, i.e. stake money is not liable to deduct tax at source either under S.194BB or under S.194B of the Act-Recipients have shown the income received from the assessee and paid the taxes-Assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default–Interest levied is set aside. [S. 194BB, 201(1), 201(IA)].

CC(Prevention) v. Advance Technology Devices ( 2019) 26 G.S.T.L.18 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Restoration of appeal -Delay of 2386 days- Appeal not to be dismissed only on the ground of failure to get numbered / registered – Delay being technical in nature condoned and appeal restored. [ Bombay High Court ( Original side ) Rules 986, Customs Act .]