Where the AO had granted deduction under sections 80HH & 80-I in the year of formation of the new industrial undertaking, he could not, in a subsequent year, deny the deduction on the ground that the conditions are not fulfilled, if he has not withdrawn the deduction granted in the earlier year.
Where the assessee had earned freight income by transporting cargo in international traffic through ‘slot charter’ arrangements on ships owned by other enterprises and the question arose whether such profits arose from “operation of ships”, held: that in view of the OECD Commentary, Article 9 of the India-UK DTAA must be interpreted as applying not only to income arising directly from the operation of ships but also to income arising from ancillary operations such as transportation of cargo through ships owned by other enterprises.
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.
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.
In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed. The Madras has reversed the judgement of the Special Bench and held that relief u/s 80-IA should not be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief u/s 80-HHC.
It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective. It must be recorded before jurisdiction is exercised. Even though no time limit is prescribed, there is an implied time limit for giving such finding i.e. the period prescribed in s. 158BE for framing the s. 158BC assessment
Where the assessee was assessed at Delhi but a notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad and the assessee had protested the usurpation of jurisdiction from the beginning
Where the assesee was a captive company rendering software development services to its parent company and was entitled to receive actual cost + 5% and it was agreed that the Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) was the appropriate method for determining arms’ length price.
The issue of notice under s. 143 (2) I. T. Act within the time limit is mandatory for block assessment proceedings. If notice u/s 143 (2) is issued beyond the time limit, the block assessment order passed u/s 158BC is not valid.
The process of pasteurisation of milk does not amount to manufacture / processing for purposes of sections 80-I and 80-HHA as while pastuerised milk is improved in quality, it is not a commercially different product as compared to raw milk.