Home ›

Search Results For: B. P. Dharmadhikari J

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: February 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Expenditure in respect of a project which did not materialize has to be treated as revenue expenditure as not capital asset comes into existence

On the question was to whether if the project does not materialize and an asset is not created, expenditure on steps in that direction must be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., reported at (1998) 233 ITR 468 clinches the controversy. There while considering the issue, the Court finds that the assessee could not have claimed it as capital expenditure, as there was no capital asset generated by spending said amount. The expenditure has been held rightly classified as revenue expenditure

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 11, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54EC: If REC Bonds are not available during the prescribed period, time for investment has to be extended. Fact that NHAI Bonds were available is irrelevant. Amount paid to sisters as per family arrangement for permitting transfer of property is decutible u/s 49(1)

The bonds were admittedly not available during the said period. The fact that the Bonds issued by the National Highway Authority of India were available and hence the assessee ought to have invested in those bonds within the stipulated period of six months is not acceptable. Section 54EC gives assessee an option to invest either in bonds of National Highway Authority of India or then in bonds of Rural Electrification Corporation Limited. The said provision does not stipulate that the investment has to be in any bond whichever is available. Both bonds carry different benefits and hence deliberately the Parliament has given option to the assessee to invest in any one out of two as per his choice. In a given case, the assessee may choose to invest in both. However, discretion is conferred upon the assessee, who is the best judge of his own needs and interests. He cannot be forced to invest in the bond whichever is available because period of six months is about to expire. This option or discretion given by the Parliament to the assessee needs to be honoured here. If said option was available when period of six months was to expire and could have been expressed by the assessee when said period was about to expire, the situation would have been otherwise

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
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 ›