COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

When s. 10A(9) was omitted in AY 2004-05, the Finance Minister said in the budget speech that the provision was “illogical” and had to be removed. Given the object & purpose of the omission, it can be held that the omission has retrospective effect and applies to change in the ownership in AY 2003–04. Further, sub–section (9) was omitted without any saving clause and it is not a case of repeal. If a provision in a statute is unconditionally omitted without any saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings, all actions must stop where such an omission is found. As s. 10A(9) has been omitted, it is as if the sub-section never existed in the statute (G.E. Thermo Matrix (ITAT B’lore followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 74(1), as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2003, uses the present tense and refers to the long-term capital loss of the current year. It applies to the long-term capital loss of AY 2003-04 onwards and not to the long-term capital loss relating to the period prior to AY 2003-04. The set-off of long-term capital loss relating to a period prior to AY 2003-04 is governed by s. 74(1) as it stood in that AY

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The tax on the salary paid by the employer was a “perquisite” u/s 17(2)(iv) because it was paid in respect of the employees’ obligation and it was not by way of monetary payment to the employees concerned but for or on their account to the Income-tax department. Consequently, it is a “non-monetary” payment of a perquisite to the employee which is eligible for exemption u/s 10(10CC)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

U/s 153A, the AO is empowered to assess or reassess the “total income” (which includes the disclosed & undisclosed income) of 6 years. This is a significant departure from the earlier block assessment scheme (s. 158BC) in which only the undisclosed income could be assessed. U/s 153A, there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. If the assessment proceedings are pending completion when the search is initiated, they will abate making way for the AO to determine the total income of the assessee in which the undisclosed income would also be included. If the assessment proceedings have already been completed, there is no question of any abatement since no proceedings are pending & the AO will have to reopen the assessments (without having the need to follow the strict provisions or complying with the strict conditions of s. 147, 148 & 151) and determine the total income of the assessee

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 14A talks of making disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to an income not chargeable to tax. No exception, such as the dividend being main or incidental income, has been carved out in the provision. The relation of expenses for disallowance is with the exempt income irrespective of the source or nature of the exempt income. When the legislature in its wisdom has not spelt out any exception coming in the way of applicability of s. 14A, it is wholly impermissible to artificially find any such exception contrary to the language of the provision and the intention of the legislature. Accordingly. s. 14A applies even if the securities are held as stock-in-trade (Leena Ramachandran 339 ITR 296 (Ker) distinguished)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 7, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The belief u/s 147 that income has escaped assessment has to be the reasonable belief of the AO himself and cannot be an opinion and/or belief of some other authority. The AO cannot blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment. On facts, the recorded reasons are identical to the objection of the audit authority. The reasons do not rely upon any tangible material in the audit report but merely upon an opinion and the existing material already on record. This itself indicates that there was no independent application of mind by the AO before he issued the s. 148 notice (India Eastern Newspaper Society 119 ITR 996 (SC) followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 5, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the jurisdiction of an authority is challenged, neither the question of res judicata nor the rule of estoppel can be invoked so as to restrain the challenge. Neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction upon the AO/ CIT where it does not exist and so no importance can be attached to the fact that the assessee, in the first round of proceedings, expressly gave up the plea against the erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the authority. Consequently, even assuming that there was a consent/ waiver by the assessee to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, he was still entitled to challenge it before the Tribunal (P. V. Doshi 113 ITR 22 (Guj) & other decisions followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The said chapter nowhere provides that method of accounting for the purpose of ascertaining net profit should be the only income from business alone and not from other sources. S. 29 provides how the income from profits and gains of business should be computed and this has to be done as provided u/s 30 to 43D. By virtue of s. 5 that total incomes of any previous years includes all income from whatever source derived. Thus for the purpose of s. 40(b)(v) read with the Explanation, there cannot be a separate method of accounting for ascertaining net profit and/or book-profit. The said section nowhere provides that the net profit as shown in the P&L A/c is not the profit computed under the head profit and gains of business. Following the principle laid down in Apollo Tyres Ltd 255 ITR 273 (SC), the AO is not entitled to recompute the P&L profits. Even if income from other sources is included in the P&L A/c, to ascertain the net profit qua book-profit for computation of remuneration of the partners the same cannot be discarded

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The Mumbai Bench declined to follow the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal. It is the settled proposition of law that when two view are possible on the same issue the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed (CIT vs. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 (SC)). Further, as the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case has already taken a view in favour of the assessee, that has to be followed unless it is reversed by a higher court

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In Rewashanker A. Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj) six objective tests have been laid down to distinguish between capital gains and business profits on sale of shares. From this, it is clear that where number of transactions of sale and purchase of shares takes place, the most important test is the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale of the shares. However, where there is repetition and continuity, coupled with magnitude of the transaction, bearing reasonable proportion to the strength of holding, then an inference can be drawn that activity is in the nature of business. Learned counsel for the revenue from the records could not demonstrate that there were large number of transactions which had frequency, volume, continuity and regularity and fell within the tests laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the income earned by the assessee from trading in shares under the head long term capital gain / short term capital gain was correctly shown