Home › › Page 137

Search Results For: Domestic Tax

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 6, 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:
S. 22: Rent received from mobile phone company for use of terrace to install antenna is taxable as "Income from house property" and not as "Other sources"

The true test is whether the space rented out is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. The rent is not for the antenna but for the space for installation of antenna. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the rent is for the antenna, and, therefore, it is wholly irrelevant whether antenna is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. What is relevant is the space which has been rented out and, therefore, as long as the space, which has been rented out, is part of the building, the rent is required to be treated as “income from house property”.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA/ 80HHC: Despite the introduction of 'block of assets' depreciation cannot be thrust on the assessee while computing quantum of eligible deduction

Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once depreciation is optional, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable or not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. Accordingly, for purposes of sections 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation not claimed for by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block of assets

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus purchases: Merely because a party has admitted to indulging in sham/ accommodation transactions does not mean that all his transactions with the assessee should be treated as sham

We cannot accept a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in law. The AO has to prove that assessee has received income from a particular source. The assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative

It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(vi): Amounts received under a Power of Attorney for making investments cannot be treated as income in the hands of the recipient

Section 56 of the Act deals with income from other sources. Sub-clause (vi) to section 56 (2) was inserted by taxation laws (amendment) Act, 2006, with effect from 01/04/2007. The plain reading of the aforementioned statutory provisions reveals that it is intended to tax a receipt of money without consideration. The impugned amount was received by the assessee for making the investment on behalf of Ustad Zakir Hussain, on the basis of Power of Attorney. If the provisions of the Act and the content of the Power of Attorney are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed then it can be concluded that the mutual funds, purchase and sold by the assessee were made on behalf of Shri Zakir Hussain

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 8, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43B/ 36(1)(va): High Court verdict in Hindustan Organics Chemicals 270 CTR 478 (Bom) decides that employees' contribution to PF is eligible for s. 43B even though that was not the issue before it. It also does not refer to any judicial precedents. Also, the Q framed by the dept and its representation before the High Court leaves much to be desired. However, the judgement is binding and has to be followed

However, again, it cannot be denied that per the said decision, which is judicially binding on us, the hon’ble court has abundantly clarified that the deduction in respect of the employee’s contribution (to the employee welfare funds) in the hands of the assessee-employer is governed by the provision of section 43B, so that where deposited by the due date of the filing of the return for the relevant year, shall be valid in terms of the amended s.43B, i.e., by Finance Act 2003, with effect from 01.04.2004, which amendment stands held by the apex court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) to the retrospective, so that it shall apply even to years prior to A.Y.2004-05. The hon’ble court, we note, does not discuss nor refer to any judicial precedents. The question of law framed by the Department, as well as its representation before the hon’ble court, leaves much to be desired. That, however, would not in any manner detract from or dilute its binding nature on us as a subordinate forum

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F: Amount paid to builder for house is equivalent to amount spent by assessee for construction. Fact that only advance is given and construction is delayed beyond 3 years does not deprive assessee of exemption

A flat which is newly constructed by a builder on behalf of the assessee is in no way different from a house constructed. Section 54F being a beneficial provision has to be interpreted so as to give the benefit of residential unit viz., flat instead of house in the present state of affairs. Even if only advance is given the benefit still will be available for exemption u/s. 54F

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Distinction between 'diversion of income by over-riding title' and 'application of income' explained. Contribution of 1% of net profit to the Cooperative Education Fund maintained by National Cooperative Union is an application of income

Diversion of income has multi-facets. Diversion arises where income is applied in a particular manner under statutory or contractual obligation or under the provisions of a document under which the company is constituted viz., memorandum of article of association or a firm has come into existence. In these circumstances, the principle that has emerged is that if a person has alienated or assigned the source of his income so that it is no longer remains his income, he cannot be taxed upon the income arising after the assignment of the source. In such event, it is not income of the assessee at all

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the High Court admits the appeal u/s 260A, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot survive

When the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive

Read more ›