Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54EC: The period of "6 months" available for making investment means 6 calendar months & not 180 days. Payment by cheque dates back to date of presentation & not date of encashment

For purposes of section 54EC, as held by the Special Bench of Ahmedabad bench in the case of Alkaben B. Patel (2014) 148 ITD 31 (Ahd) and M/s. Crucible Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5994/Mum/2013 dated 25.02.2015 “6 months” have been interpreted and it is held that the same would mean 6 calendar months and not 180 days. As held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 529 (SC), in the case of cheques not having been dishonored but having been encashed, the payment related back to the date of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are "compensatory" in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law

An ‘offence’ would be the one which will arise as a result to commission of an action which is prohibited by law, and, in all the given situations, no element of any consent of the parties involved can bring any change in its legal consequences. Similarly, any amount paid by the assessee, in the form of compensation, as a consequence of breach of contract between the two parties, cannot be said to be amount paid for any purpose which is an ‘offence’, prohibited by the law. In other words, under the income tax law, one is required to go into the real nature of the transactions and not to the nomenclature that may have been assigned by the parties. Thus, to decide such issues, we are required to see real substance under the Income Tax Law, and not merely its form. Thus, only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a distinction betwen "setting up" and "commencement" of a business. A business is "set up" and expenditure is deductible even if assessee has no customers and no income

The assessee has already purchased residential flat for the purpose of resale/lease, and therefore assessee was apparently ready to do its business. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the business is set up by the assessee during the year under consideration. For the deductibility of expenses incurred after this stage, earning of the business income is not a mandatory condition under the law. The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers, then it can be said that business is set up and it would amount to carrying on the business and accordingly the expenses would stand allowable to the assessee, irrespective of the fact whether actually assessee got any customer and earned any business income during the year or not

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Companies with large turnover like Infosys & Wipro are not comparable to companies with smaller turnover and should be excluded from the list of comparables

The said Companies are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services are different and as such the profit earned therefrom cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee. The Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order has considered the said principles whilst coming to the conclusion that the said three Companies cannot be treated to be comparable to the Assessee Company. The turn over is obviously a relevant factor to consider the comparability

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(d)/ 46A: A buyback of shares u/s 77A of the Companies Act is not a reduction of capital u/s 100 - 104 of that Act. A buyback cannot be regarded as a "colourable transaction" and cannot be assessed as "deemed dividend" u/s 2(22)(d). The capital gains on buy-back are exempt under the India-Mauritius DTAA

Section 100-105 r.w.s. 391of the CA deal with reduction of capital and obtaining permission of the Court. Clearly, both deal with different situations. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt with the schemes of buyback of shares and reduction of capital in the case of Capgemini India Private Limited (Company Scheme Petition No.434 of 2014 dated 28.04.2015) where it was held that it is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act. The observations of the Hon’ble Court does not leave any doubt that buyback of shares cannot be equated with reduction of capital

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: February 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi) vs. Article 12 of DTAA: The retrospective amendment to s. 9(1)(vi) so as to supersede the law laid down in Asia Satellite 332 ITR 340 (Del) and assess transmission fees as “royalty” has no impact on assessees covered by DTAA because a corresponding amendment has not been made to the definition of “royalty” therein. Amendments to domestic law do not affect the DTAA

This Court is of the view that no amendment to the Act, whether retrospective or prospective can be read in a manner so as to extend in operation to the terms of an international treaty. In other words, a clarificatory or declaratory amendment, much less one which may seek to overcome an unwelcome judicial interpretation of law, cannot be allowed to have the same retroactive effect on an international instrument effected between two sovereign states prior to such amendment. In the context of international law, while not every attempt to subvert the obligations under the treaty is a breach, it is nevertheless a failure to give effect to the intended trajectory of the treaty. Employing interpretive amendments in domestic law as a means to imply contoured effects in the enforcement of treaties is one such attempt, which falls just short of a breach, but is nevertheless, in the opinion of this Court, indefensible

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c)/ 271(1-B): If the notice is issued without application of mind (by striking out the relevant part in the notice), the penalty proceedings are invalid

It is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act. As regards Section 271(1-B) of the Act, it clearly indicates that the assessment order should contain a direction for initiation of proceedings. Merely saying that the penalty proceedings have been initiated would not satisfy the requirement, a direction to initiate proceeding shall be clear and not be ambiguous

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 172/ 195: Shipping companies assessed u/s 172 are not subject to TDS obligations u/s 195

To our mind, the Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Orient (Goa) Pvt. Ltd 325 ITR 554 seen in this light does not, with greatest respect, take into account the scheme and setting as understood above. There need not be apprehension because there is no escape from the levy and recovery of tax. The tax has to be levied and collected. The ship cannot leave the port or if allowed to leave any port in India, it must either pay or make arrangement to pay the tax. Hence, the apprehension of avoidance or evasion both are taken care of by the legislature. That is how advisedly the legislature cast the obligation to deduct tax at source on the person responsible to make payment to a non-resident in shipping business

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 23(1)(b): Brokerage paid to give out premises on rent and to earn lease rent is not deductible in computing the Income from house property

The word ‘rent’ connotes a return given by the tenant or occupant of the land or corporeal hereditaments to the owner for the possession and use thereof. It is a sum agreed between the tenant and the owner to be paid at fixed intervals for the usage of such property. The phrase rent received and receivable contemplates the amount received for the enjoyment of the property and certain rights in the said property by the tenant. If there is charge directly related to the rental income or for the property without which the rights in the property cannot be enjoyed by the tenant then it can be construed as part and parcel of enjoyment of the property from where rent is received then such charges can be held to be allowable from the rent received or receivable. However, the brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner. Brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): While receiving of gifts by doctors is prohibited by MCI Guidelines, the giving of such gifts by Pharma companies is not prohibited by any law. CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 is prospective

Receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Giving small gifts bearing company logo to doctors does not tantamount to giving gifts to doctors but it is regarded as advertising expenses. As regards sponsoring doctors for conferences and extending hospitality, pharmaceuticals companies have been sponsoring practicing doctors to attend prestigious conferences so that they gather contemporary knowledge about management of certain illness/disease and learn about newer therapies. We found that the disallowance was made by the AO by relying on the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 onwards. However, the Circular was not applicable because it was introduced w.e.f.01.08.2012. i.e. assessment year 2013-2014, whereas the relevant assessment year under consideration is 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

Read more ›