COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 7, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The expression “a residential house” in s. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and “a” should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitled to exemption u/s 54 in respect of capital gains on sale of its property on purchase of both the flats, despite the fact that the flats were purchased by separate sale deeds. Deduction is allowable even if the flats are on different floors. On facts, as the two flats purchased by the assessee are adjacent to one another and have a common meeting point, the deduction cannot be denied (D. Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar), K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar) followed; Susheela M. Jhaveri 107 ITD 327 (Mum) (SB) held not good law)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 6, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The facts do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a malafide manner or that the reasons explained are only a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is a settled proposition of law that Courts should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and the reason for delay is bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. The Court should be liberal in construing sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. Whenever substantial Justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, cause of substantial Justice has to be preferred. On facts, the reasons explained by the assessee show that due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 496 days has to be condoned (Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471(SC) referred)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 5, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

A combined reading of s. 201(1A) and s. 40(a)(ia) shows that while a case of short-deduction of TDS is covered by s. 201(1A), it is not covered by s. 40(a)(ia). There is an obvious omission to include short deduction / lesser deduction in s. 40(a)(ia). Therefore, in case of short /lesser deduction of tax, the entire expenditure whose genuineness was not doubted by the assessing officer, cannot be disallowed (S.K. Tekriwal (Cal HC) & Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mum) followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 4, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

An amount paid for investment in share capital of subsidiaries outside India is not in the nature of an “international transaction” as defined in s. 92-B. Transfer pricing provisions are not applicable to transactions where there is no income (Circular No. 14, dated 22/11/2011, Dana Corporation 321 ITR 178 (AAR) & Amiantit International 322 ITR 678 (AAR) referred)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 3, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 40(a)(i) does not impose an absolute disallowance for failure to deduct TDS. It provides that the deduction shall be allowed in the year of deduction of the TDS. As the assessee had in fact deducted TDS in the immediately succeeding year, it had substantially complied with the provision. Also, as the fact that TDS was not deducted was stated in the tax audit report which was filed with the return, it could not be said that the assessee has not disclosed the correct particulars of income

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 31, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 2(24)(x) provides that the amounts of employees’ contribution to PF etc collected by the employer shall be assessed as his income. S. 36(1)(va) provides that the said employees’ contribution shall be allowed as a deduction if paid within the “due date” specified in the relevant legislation. S. 43(B)(b) provides that any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund etc shall be allowed if paid before the due date of filing the ROI. The “due date” referred to in s. 36(1)(va) must be read in conjunction with s. 43B(b) to mean the “due date” of filing the ROI. The AO wrongly proceeded on the basis that the “due date” in s. 36(1)(va) is the due date fixed by the Provident Fund authority, whereas read in the context of s. 43B(b) it is the “due date” fixed for filing the ROI

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The CBDT’s instructions for assumption of jurisdiction for selection of cases of corporate assesses for scrutiny and assessment are issued u/s 119 and are binding on the AO and have to be followed by him in letter and spirit. The burden lies on the authority assuming jurisdiction to show and establish that such instructions have duly been complied and satisfied in letter and spirit. On facts, as there was no disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs or more in the earlier years and as no identical issue had arisen in the present year, the notice issued u/s 143(2) was not in terms of the CBDT’s Scrutiny Guidelines and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal and the entire assessment proceedings were invalid (Nayana P. Dedhia 270 ITR 572 (AP) followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under the policy of the Central Government and the SEBI (FII) Regulations, 1995 a FII can only “invest” in securities and cannot do “business” in securities. S. 115AD also provides that all income arising to a FII from securities, whether from their retention or from their transfer, is taxable as a capital gain. This is also the view expressed in Press Note F. No. 5(13)SE/91-FIV dated 24.03.1994 issued by the Ministry of Finance. If the Revenue is permitted to make a distinction between the securities held by a FII by classifying them as a capital asset or as stock in trade, s. 115AD will become otiose. The result is that all income arising to a FII, including from dealings in derivatives has to be assessed as capital gains. The contrary view of the AAR in Royal Bank of Canada cannot be followed (LG Asian Plus Ltd 46 SOT 159 followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The affidavit produced by the AR is not a valid affidavit because there is no verification appended on it and there is no mention as to which of the paras are true to the knowledge of the deponent and which of the paras of the affidavit are true to his belief. The affidavit is also not a duly sworn affidavit as required under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules 1963 because it has not been properly endorsed by the notary regarding the oath of affirmation before him by the executant of the affidavit. The notary has put his signatures under his name seal but there is no mention whether the oath was administered to the signatory or if done so, when and where it was administered. Even words “Sworn before me” are missing. If the affidavit does not certify or endorse the fact that oath has been administered, it remains a waste paper. On merits, the case is one of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee and the AR. The explanation that the AR’s assistant kept the papers in his drawer and failed to take necessary action is vague and evasive and not sufficient cause for condonation. There is also no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. There is also total inaction and gross negligence on the part of the assessee for not inquiring the status of the appeal from the AR. Though courts adopt liberal view while condoning delay on the principle that technicalities should not prevail over the cause of justice, litigants should not take the courts for granted

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 27, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though the assessee could have disputed the valuation on the basis of the deemed value and chose not to do so, the fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) started. The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him. As such, there is no scope to admit the appeal