Home › Archive for High Court › Page 59
Category: High Court

Archive for the ‘High Court’ Category

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(23C)(via): Institution consistently generating surplus, utilizing the surplus to buy assets, spending meager amount on treatment of poor patients is not existing “solely for philanthropic purpose” and “not for the purpose of profits”. Fact that exemption has been allowed in the past does not mean exemption has to be continued

The intention of the legislature in making provisions of section 10 (23C)(via) is that an institution shall exist solely for philanthropic purpose and not for the purpose of profits. The expression “solely for philanthropic purpose” and “not for the purpose of profits” spells out a clear intention of the legislature that the institution should not merely exist for philanthropic purpose but existence shall not be for profits. Satisfaction of this twin test by an institution claiming a deduction would entitle it for the benefit of the provisions of section 10 (23C)(via) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1980-81, 1981-82
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Expenditure allowable u/s 35D cannot be capitalized to asset for claim of depreciation

A plain reading of section 35D indicates that the Legislature has thought it appropriate to give a special benefit to the assessee in respect of expenditure specified in sub-section (2) incurred before commencement of business or after the commencement of business, in connection with the extension of industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up a new industrial unit. This provision allows amortisation of the specific category of expenditures incurred by the assessee, by way of deduction of an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of the ten successive previous years as provided therein. The legislature, therefore, having specifically provided for amortisation of the preliminary expenditure which includes expenditure incurred for issuance of shares by the assessee in connection with the issue of shares, the said expenditure on issue of shares is not eligible for depreciation.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Law laid down in Zoom Comm 327 ITR 510 (Del) does not apply if claim of assessee is bona fide and not in defiance of the law

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the assessee cannot be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 12AA: Non disposal of an application for registration before the expiry of six months as provided u/s 12AA (2) would not result in deemed grant of registration. Assessee will have to file a Writ to compel CIT to consider application

Providing that an application should be disposed of within a period of six months is distinct from stipulating the consequence of a failure to do so. Laying down a consequence that an application would be deemed to be granted upon the expiry of six months can only be by way of a legislative fiction or a deeming definition which the Court, in its interpretative capacity, cannot create. That would be to rewrite the law and to introduce a provision which advisedly the legislature has not adopted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A + Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if AO does not record satisfication with reference to accounts that assessee's claim is improper. However, if Rule 8D applies, assessee's claim that interest is not disallowable on ground of "own funds" is not acceptable

The decisions relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), Suzlon Energy Ltd. 354 ITR 630 (Guj) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. 224 ITR 624 (SC) could not be now applicable, if we apply and compute the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules. The said Rule in sub Rule (2) specifically prescribes the mode and method for computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Thus, the interpretation of clause (ii) to sub Rule (2) to Rule 8D of the Rules by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is not sustainable. The said clause expressly states that where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest in the previous year and the interest paid is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt then the formula prescribed would apply

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A & Rule 8D cannot be interpreted to mean that the entire tax exempt income can be disallowed

By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 2, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Even if contract is awarded to the Joint Venture, the income is assessable only in the hands of the person which has executed the work

The ITAT has as a matter of fact found that the assessee/ joint venture did not execute the contract work and the said work was done by one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited. It is also found that the receipts for the said project work are reflected in the books of account of SMS Infrastructure Limited and in return, said SMS Infrastructure Limited has disclosed that income. The said return was accepted by the Assessing Officer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10B(4): All business profits of the undertaking are eligible for deduction and it is not necessary to show that they have a "direct nexus" with the undertaking

Sub-section (4) of s. 10B does not require an assessee to establish a direct nexus with the business of the undertaking and once an income forms part of the business of the undertaking, the same would be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking. Thus, once an income forms part of the business of the eligible undertaking, there is no further mandate in the provisions of section 10B to exclude the same from the eligible profits

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 18, 2010 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Chapter VI-A deductions are not limited to the business profits but are available to the extent of the Gross Total Income

The only question sought to be canvassed is that out of these deductions the admissible deduction under section 80-O ought to be limited to the extent of Rs.69,70,127 which represents business income. In other words, the income from interest and dividend shall not form part of the gross total income as defined under section 80B(5) of the Act. The submission is misconceived

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Even if gains have accrued on execution of the development agreement as per Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas, the subsequent modification/ supercession of the agreement means that gains are not taxable as per real income theory, (ii) expenditure on buy-back of shares of warring shareholders is business expenditure

In Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, the issue was to determine the year in which the property was transferred for the purpose of capital gains. In this case the issue is what is the consideration received for the transfer of an asset. No income is accrued or received of the value of 18000 sq.feet of constructed area under the development agreement because the said agreement was not acted upon as it came to be uperseded/modified by the Tripartite agreement. This was the position when the return of income was filed. On the application of the real income theory, there would be neither accrual nor receipt of income to warrant bringing to tax to the constructed area of 18,000 sq.ft which has not been received by the assessee (CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas 46 ITR 144 (SC) followed)

Read more ›