Home › › Page 136

Search Results For: Domestic Tax

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Assessment cannot be reopened in the absence of "fresh material"

The order passed by the assessing authority extracted above unmistakably shows that even at that stage it had no fresh material available to it so as to exercise the jurisdiction available under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act. It was, thus, taking a fresh call on the subject of assessment of income (i.e. re-assessment), drawing conclusions and inferences from the same very material that had been scrutinized in the original assessment proceedings

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15): Fees or consideration received for rendition of a service to business, trade or commerce will not attract the disability under first proviso to s. 2(15) if such service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself

Even in a situation in which an assessee receives a fees or consideration for rendition of a service to the business, trade or commerce, as long as such a service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself, the disability under second limb of first proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 269SS: Loan & deposit by way of journal entries are not covered. Transactions between a firm and its partner are also not covered

In the books of the assessee, there is only a journal entry by debiting the account of some other party and crediting to the account of the creditor. In these circumstances, in our opinion, when there is no monetary transaction between the assessee and creditor, it cannot be said that assessee accepted loan or deposit from the creditor in violation of Section 269SS

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10B(4): The argument that s. 10B(4) lays down a computational formula and that all business profits (including DEPB receipts) should be eligible for deduction irrespective of the effective source is not acceptable

We are unable to subscribe to the view expressed per the decisions relied upon by the assessee, i.e., that in view of computational formula of section 10B(4), the entire profits of the business of the undertaking, irrespective of their immediate source, shall comprise the qualifying profits

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C: Even if the AO of the person searched and the 'other person' is the same, the recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched is an essential and prerequisite condition for bestowing jurisdiction to the AO of the ‘other person. Impact of amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 w.e.f. 1.10.2014 considered

It is a clear-cut proposition that the recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched is an essential and prerequisite condition for bestowing jurisdiction to the AO of the ‘other person.’ On a close comparative study, it is overt that in so far as the question of acquiring jurisdiction by the AO of the person other than the person searched is concerned, the provisions of section 153C are in pari materia with section 158BD

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271FA: As DIT is of the same rank as the CIT(A), an appeal against the DIT's order can only be filed before the ITAT even though s. 253(1) does not refer to s. 271FA

Though there is no specific reference of the order passed under section 271FA of the Act by the Director of Income-tax in section 253(1) of the Act for the purpose of filing an appeal against the said order, but an analogy drawn from the reading of section 253(1) of the Act is that the order passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax or an Officer who is equal in rank can only be challenged before the Tribunal, which is higher in rank

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied for an assessment made in a cursory & summary manner

A perusal of the assessment order demonstrates that it has been passed in a cursory and summary manner, de hors of any detail, except for mentioning that certain figures had not tallied, no analysis whatsoever or reasons leading to the disallowance, are given by the AO. AO simply says that the assessee has filed reply explaining the discrepancies but does not give any reason as to why the explanation cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment, in our view cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 9 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 264: ITAT entertains appeal against order passed by CIT u/s 264

The assessee sought revision of its assessment, finalized u/s.143(3) on 03.12.2008, accepting the returned income of Rs.35,19,179/-, u/s.264 of the Act on the ground that the deduction u/s.80-IB, to which it was entitled, had not been allowed per the impugned …

Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The consideration has to be determined on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed and not on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of registration of the sale deed

It is manifest that u/s 50C, the value adopted by the stamp-valuation authority is deemed as the consideration for computation of capital gain. However, such valuation adopted by the stamp-valuation authority should be in respect of the transfer by the assessee, of the capital assets. This enhancement was beyond the control of the assessee (seller). It is also not the case of the revenue, that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executed the agreement to sale.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Unabsorbed depreciation of AYs 1997-98 to 2001-02 is eligible for relief granted by amended s. 32(2) in AY 2002-03 (ii) Judgement of a non-jurisdictional High Court has to be preferred over the judgement of a Special Bench of the ITAT (iii) In the absence of exempt income, s. 14A disallowance cannot be added to s. 115JB book profits even if assessee has accepted s. 14A disallowance in the normal computation

The assessee may have accepted the disallowance under section 14A but once it is a settled legal position, in the light of the law laid down in CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd (Del) that there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A unless there is corresponding exempt income and the assessee has no such exempt income, adjustment under clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JB (2) cannot indeed be made. The adjustment has to meet the tests of law and what cannot be considered to be ‘expenditure relatable to exempt income’ under the law, cannot be subjected to the adjustment either. There is no estoppel against the law. The mere fact that the assessee has accepted this disallowance affects that disallowance only and nothing more than that; it does not clothe such an adjustment, in computation of book profit under section 115JB, with legality

Read more ›