Home › › Page 15

Search Results For: Delhi High Court

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are not a game of hide and seek. If AO does not conduct proper inquiry, the obligation to do so is on the CIT(A) & ITAT

The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal a uniform pattern of cash deposits of equal amounts in the respective accounts preceding the transactions in question

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/10B: loss suffered in s. 10A/10B units cannot be set-off against the profits of taxable units

The Act of Parliament in consciously retaining this section in Chapter III indicates its intention that the nature of relief continues to be an exemption. Chapter VII deals with the incomes forming part of the total income on which no income-tax is payable. These are the incomes which are exempted from charge, but are included in the total income of the assessee. Parliament, despite being conversant with the implications of this Chapter, has consciously chosen to retain section 10A in Chapter III

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of Special Bench verdict in L. G. Electronics are not binding on the assessee or the Revenue. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration because the legal standards or ratio accepted and applied by the Tribunal was erroneous

Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23rd January, 2013 in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd (supra) are not binding on the assesse or the Revenue. The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. We disagree with the Revenue and do not accept the overbearing and orotund submission that the exercise to separate “routine” and “non-routine” AMP or brand building exercise by applying “bright line test” of non-comparables should be sanctioned and in all cases, costs or compensation paid for AMP expenses would be “NIL”, or at best would mean the amount or compensation expressly paid for AMP expenses. It would be conspicuously wrong and incorrect to treat the segregated transactional value as “NIL” when in fact the two AEs had treated the international transactions as a package or a single one and contribution is attributed to the aggregate package. Unhesitatingly, we add that in a specific case this criteria and even zero attribution could be possible, but facts should so reveal and require. To this extent, we would disagree with the majority decision in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This would be necessary when the arm‘s length price of the controlled transaction cannot be adequately or reliably determined without segmentation of AMP expenses

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: 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: February 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 115JB: Distinction between "reserve" & "provision" explained. Statutory reserve created u/s 45-IC of RBI Act is not a "diversion of income at source" and cannot be excluded from book profits

Diversion of income at source by way of overriding title as a principle is applicable when under a statutory or contractual obligation or under the provisions of Memorandum and Articles of Association, the earning is divested and the assessed has no title over a particular receipt. When such charge exists, the amount or income so charged must be excluded from income of the assessed as income never reaches his hands and in fact belongs to a third person. Thus, the income stands diverted at source. Diversion of income at source implies that income or the amount mentioned therein belongs to a third party and was not income of the assesse

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 269SS: Transaction of loan between a firm and its partner does not attract s. 269SS. If other High Courts have taken a consistent view, that should be followed even if opposite view is possible

Transaction effected between a firm and its partners cannot partake the colour of loan or deposit and as such, Section 269-SS nor Section 271-D of the Act would come into play

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 234B: View in Alcatel Lucent that assessee must pay interest for short-fall of advance-tax if it induced payee not to deduct TDS cannot be followed. View in Jacobs has to be followed because obligation of payer to deduct TDS is absolute & not dependent on assertion of payee. Impact of Proviso to s. 209(1) inserted by FA 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2012 considered

This Court respectfully cannot apply the view taken in Alcatel Lucent to this case. This is because if the payer deducts tax at source only when the assessee admits tax liability, then deductions would not be made in cases where the assessee either falsely or under a bona fide mistake denies tax liability. Tax obligations cannot be founded on assertions of interested parties. In such cases, the payer’s obligation to deduct tax would depend on the payee’s opinion of whether it is liable to tax, which may differ from its actual liability to tax as determined by the AO’s final order. This effectively authorizes the assessee and the payer to contract out of the statutory obligation to deduct tax at source, which in this case, is located in Section 195(1). Surely this could not be the Parliamentary intent

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt even though the source is the public who visit the cinema hall after it becomes operational

A subsidy of such nature cannot possibly be granted by the Government directly. Entertainment tax is leviable on the admission tickets to cinema halls only after the facility becomes operational. Since the source of the subsidy is the public at large which is to be attracted as viewers to the cinema halls, the funds to support such an incentive cannot be generated until and unless the cinema halls become functional

Read more ›