{"id":169,"date":"2008-10-04T16:21:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-04T16:21:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?page_id=169"},"modified":"2008-10-04T16:21:00","modified_gmt":"2008-10-04T16:21:00","slug":"digest-of-important-case-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Digest of important case law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n
\nNo time to read through voluminous case reports?<\/p>\n
\nCan\u2019t separate the wheat from the chaff?\n<\/div>\n
\nFret Not! The KSA Legal team will bring you up-to-speed with the choicest of case-law so you can focus your attention only on the important ones. This section is updated on a monthly basis so make sure you bookmark this page.\n<\/div>\n

Compiled By: Ajay R. Singh, Paras S. Savla, Rahul K. Hakani and Sujeet S. Karkal, Advocates<\/DIV><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/DIV>\n<\/div>\n

<\/a>
\nNovember 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to see the December 2008 Digest<\/a><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\tCompany \u2013 Book Profits \u2013 Provision for Doubtful Debts \u2013 S. 115JA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Provision for bad and doubtful debts being a provision made to cover up the probable diminution in the value of asset i.e. debt receivable by the assessee, it can not be said to be a provision for liability and therefore, item (c) of the explanation to section 115JA is not attracted and the provision for doubtful debts can not be added back under Cl. (c).<\/p>\n

CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008) 13 DTR 105 (SC)<\/em><\/p>\n

2.\tDepreciation \u2013 Motor Trucks – S. 32<\/strong><\/p>\n

Higher depreciation to be allowed only if there is evidence that the assessee was in business of hiring out motor vehicles. <\/p>\n

CIT vs. Gupta Global Exim P. Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 132 (SC)<\/em><\/p>\n

3.\tIncome – Capital or Revenue \u2013 Subsidy – S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Incentive subsidy under a scheme floated with a view to boost the tempo of establishing new sugar factories and substantial expansion of existing factories and to facilitate repayment of term loans for that purpose was capital in nature, notwithstanding the mechanism of price and duty differential through it was routed.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors . (2008) 13 DTR 1 (SC)<\/em> <\/p>\n

4.\tPrecedent – Decision of High Court – Supreme Court – Retrospectively<\/strong><\/p>\n

A judicial decision acts, retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a \u201cnew rule\u201d but to maintain and expound the \u201cold one\u201d. In other words, judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood.<\/p>\n

It is no doubt true that the Court has accepted the doctrine of \u201cprospective overruling\u201d. It is based on the philosophy; \u201cthe past cannot always be erased by new judicial declaration\u201d. It may, however, be stated that this is an exception to the general rule of doctrine of precedent.<\/p>\n

ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 346 (SC)<\/em> <\/p>\n

5.\tRectification of Mistake \u2013 Appellate Tribunal \u2013 S 254(2)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Non consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High court or Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from record rectifiable under section 254(2).<\/p>\n

ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange of India<\/em>. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) \/ (2008) 12 DTR 346 (SC) \/ (2008) 173 TAXMAN 322 (SC)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

HIGH COURTS<\/strong>
\nA.\t<\/p>\n

Annual Value – S. 23 (1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Property let out to Tenant and tenant sub letting the property for higher rent. Amount paid by sub lessees cannot be assessable as income of the assessee, unless there is evidence to show that the transaction was not genuine.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading and Agencies P. Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 304 ITR 401 (Bom.)<\/p>\n

Appellate Tribunal \u2013 Powers \u2013 S. 254<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Tribunal cannot direct the assessing officer to follow an order which is not pronounced.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Modi Revlon (P) Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 174 TAXMAN 192 (Delhi)<\/p>\n

B.
\nBlock Assessment – Rectification of Mistake \u2013 Surcharge \u2013 S. 113, 154<\/strong><\/p>\n

When the Tribunal passed the order, the issue of levy of surcharge by retrospective application of proviso to section 113 being a debatable issue, levy of surcharge by invoking section 154 was invalid.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Kirti Kumar Shah<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 344 (Raj.)<\/p>\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>:- \tAfter considering the Supreme Court Judgment in CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta<\/strong> (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), also see ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd<\/strong>. (2008) 12 DTR 346 (SC)<\/p>\n

Block Assessment – Search and Seizure – Chapter VI-A – Advance Tax \u2013 S. 158BB<\/strong><\/p>\n

While computing the undisclosed income for the Block period, deduction under Chapter VI-A, allowable. Amount in respect of advance tax has been paid must be taken in to account.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. V. Subramaniyan (Late) <\/em>(2008) 305 ITR 289 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Business Expenditure \u2013 Advertisement Expenses \u2013 S. 37(1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Advertisement expenditure incurred on products of sister concern. Assessee is sole distributor and marketing agent of products of sister concern. Amount spent wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the company\u2019s business and allowable as deduction.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Sabena Detergents P. Ltd. <\/em>(2008) 303 ITR 320 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Business Loss – Shares of Subsidiary \u2013 S. 28<\/strong><\/p>\n

The subsidiary company had been ordered to wound up, there was no question of any party dealing in the shares of that company. The tribunal had come to the conclusion that the shares were stock in trade and therefore allowed the loss. The loss has to be treated as a trading loss. The mere fact that the shares were not sold was of no significance, since the fact the shares could not have been sold and had became worthless. The departmental appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. H. P. Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 305 ITR 111 (HP)<\/p>\n

Business Loss – Exchange Fluctuation – S. 28<\/strong><\/p>\n

Loss occurring on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of cost of imported machinery is allowable.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. L. G. Electronics India (P) Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 12 DTR 263 (Del.)<\/p>\n

C.
\nCapital Gains – Long Term \u2013 Short Term \u2013 S. 45<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee purchased the Land in 1970. The construction of house partly in 1980. The Assessee sold the land and house in the year 1982. The court held that the Gains attributable to land assessable as long term Capital Gains and Gains attributable to house is assessable as short term Capital Gains.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. A. S. Aulakh<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR 27 (P& H)<\/p>\n

Capital Gains – Mortgage Debt \u2013 S. 48<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee was not entitled to the deduction on account of mortgage debt to the Bank. It was application of income and not diversion of income by overriding title.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Sharad Sharma<\/em> (2008) 305 ITR 24 (All) <\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue – Expenses on issue of Debentures – Revenue Expenditure \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

The expenses incurred for the issue of debentures are allowable deduction as revenue expenditure.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 304 ITR 67 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Replacing Fence with Compound Wall – Revenue Expenditure – S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

The expenditure incurred on construction of compound wall in the place of barbed wire fencing was a revenue expenditure.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Southern Roadways Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 304 ITR 84 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Development of website \u2013 S. 37(1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Expenditure on development of website with a view to disseminate information about assesses business activities amongst its clients is revenue expenditure even though resulting in enduring benefit.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Indian Visit Com. (P) Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 13 DTR 258 (Del.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue \u2013 Expenditure on Software Replacement of UPS System and Printer – Revenue Expenditure \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court held that the concept of enduring benefit must respond to the changing economic realities of the business. The expenses incurred by installation of software packages in the present computer world, which revolves the modern communication technology, enables the assessee to carry on business operation effectively, efficiently, smoothly and profitably. However, such software it self does not work on a stand alone basis. It has to be fitted to a computer system to work. Such software enhances efficiency of the operation. It is an aid in the manufacturing process rather than tool itself. Therefore, the payment for such application software, though there is an enduring benefit, does not result in acquisition of any capital asset hence has to be treated as revenue expenditure.<\/p>\n

The Court also held that expenditure incurred on replacement of printer was also revenue expenditure.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Southern Roadways Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 304 ITR 84 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Receipt \u2013 Restrictive Covenant – S. 17(3)(1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee after retirement executing agreement to refrain from taking up any competitive employment \/ assignment in future. Receipt is capital in nature being a special compensation after cessation of employment the said receipt can not be taxed as profit in lieu of salary.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Shyam Sundar Chhaparia<\/em> (2008) 305 ITR 181 (MP)<\/p>\n

Editorial Note: See Bombay High Court decision in case of Narendra Desai<\/strong> (2008) 214 CTR (Bom) 190 = (2008) 1DTR 106<\/p>\n

D.
\nDeduction Actual Payment \u2013 Provident Fund \u2013 S. 43B<\/strong><\/p>\n

Provident fund and ESI contribution paid belatedly but prior to filing of return could not be disallowed under section 43B.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Nexus Computers (P) Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 12 DTR 77 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Deduction of Tax at Source – Packing Material – S. 194C<\/strong><\/p>\n

Packing material carrying printed work, transaction essentially a sale. Purchaser not liable to deduct tax at source on price.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, Marketed Khanna<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR 17 (P & H)<\/p>\n

\tDeemed Income – Stock Valuation \u2013 S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

There was difference between stock value shown in accounts and value disclosed to Bank. Inflated stock submitted to avail of higher credit facility from Bank. Neither Bank nor the Assessing officer physically verifying and certifying the stock. Additions deleted.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Das Industries<\/em> (2008) 303 ITR 199 (All)<\/p>\n

E.
\nExport Undertaking \u2013 Interest \u2013 S. 10B<\/strong><\/p>\n

Interest received by assessee from sister concern on advances against purchase of goods is \u201cprofits and gains\u201d eligible for exemption under section 10B.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Hycron India Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 13 DTR 13 (Raj.) <\/p>\n

H.
\nHotel – Special Deduction \u2013 S. 80IA(4)(iii)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\tWhen the Hotel granted certificate by prescribed authorities Income tax authorities has no jurisdiction to decide on basis of his own criteria that the assessee is not entitled to special deduction under section 80IA.<\/p>\n

Gujarat JHM Hotels Ltd. vs. Director General of I. T<\/em>. (2008) 305 ITR 386 (Guj.)<\/p>\n

I.
\nIncome – Capital or Revenue Receipt – Non Compete Fees – S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee, after selling his business as a going concern entering into another agreement with the purchaser not to compete with purchaser in the same line of business in the specified territory consideration received for such non-compete agreement was capital receipt not chargeable to tax.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Amol Narendra Dalal<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 87 (Bom.)<\/p>\n

Income from Undisclosed Source \u2013 Sales \u2013 S. 4, 143 (3)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The entire sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit or treated as undisclosed income of the assessee only is the net profit rate which has to be adopted in such cases.<\/p>\n

Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP) <\/p>\n

Industrial Undertaking – Duty Drawback – S. 80IB<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deduction under section 80IB is not entitled in respect of duty draw back.<\/p>\n

Shakthi Footwear vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 157 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

K.
\nKar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 \u2013 Reassessment \u2013 S. 148<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amount paid under KVS Scheme and certificate obtained, assessment cannot be reopened.<\/p>\n

A. Ramamurthy vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 305 ITR 260 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

M.
\nMutuality \u2013 Income – Interest Income from Bank \u2013 S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee company has been formed by certain shopkeepers essentially for the benefit of the members, principle of mutuality is not applicable to interest earned by the assessee on FDRs with banks, more so when the memorandum and articles of association permits various kinds of business which can be carried on by the assessee.<\/p>\n

Devi Ahilya New Cloth Market Co. Ltd. vs. CIT<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 33 (MP)<\/p>\n

N.
\nNotice \u2013 Assessment \u2013 S. 143, 282<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notice under section 143(2) was sent by registered post, which was received back undelivered. The notice ought to have been sent along with acknowledgment due. Hence, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act had been served upon the assessee with in prescribed period, and therefore the assessment was invalid.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR 177 (Delhi)<\/p>\n

R.
\nReassessment – Block Assessment \u2013 S. 147, 148, 158BA, BC, BE, BG, & 158 BH<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once assessment has been framed under section158 BA, in relation to undisclosed income of the block period as a result of search, A.O. can not issue notice under section 148, for reopening such assessment.<\/p>\n

Cargo Clearing Agency (Gujarat) vs. Jt. CIT<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 50 (Guj.)<\/p>\n

Reassessment \u2013 Notice – Assessment Not Finalised – S. 147, 148<\/strong><\/p>\n

When the valid assessment is pending, the assessing officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for the purposes of reopening under section 147.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. K. M. Pachayappan<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR (264) (Mad).<\/p>\n

Recovery of Tax – S. 220(6)<\/strong><\/p>\n

When assessee files an application for stay when the appeal is pending before the CIT(A), unless the assessing officer rejects the application, he cannot direct for attaching the assesses bank Account.<\/p>\n

Dr. T. K. Shanmugasundaram vs. CIT and Others<\/em> (2008) 303 ITR 387 (Mad.) <\/p>\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>: Refer Bombay High Court in KEC International vs. B.R. Balakrishnan & Ors<\/strong> (2001) 251 ITR 158 (Bom).<\/p>\n

Return \u2013 Assessment – Signed by Dead Person Null and Void – S. 139, 143 (3)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Return signed by dead person filed after his death. Return was null and void and no valid assessment could have been made on the basis of invalid return.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Moti Ram (Decd) Through L\/H. Dharam Pal<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 212 (P&H)<\/p>\n

S.
\nSearch and Seizure \u2013 Addition – Retraction of Statement \u2013 S. 132 (4), 158 BB<\/strong><\/p>\n

Statement made in the course of search and seizure was retracted only after issue of summons, addition can not be made merely on the basis of statement.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and Others<\/em> (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.)<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure – Block Assessment – Warrant in the name of Dead Person – Assessment Invalid \u2013 S. 158BC, 144<\/strong><\/p>\n

Search warrant being issued in the name of dead person and panchanma also prepared in the name of dead person, the search and authorization invalid and void ab initio and therefore block assessment under section 158BC, read with section 144 in pursuance thereof is also invalid.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar L\/H of late Mohar Singh<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 209 (P& H)<\/p>\n

T.
\nTribunal – Remarks against Counsel – S. 254(2)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Self restraint and temperate language are virtues of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Judicial language does not use whip\u2013lashing scathing or disparaging remarks. These are uncalled for deciding a lis. A presiding officer is expected to watch the forensic battle of wits from a higher pedestal rather than becoming part of din and dust of battle. With this word of caution, nothing needs to be said more in view of the fact that by the order impugned. Tribunal recalled the order, thus the remarks stand obliterated. The Tribunal ought not have made scathing remarks against counsel for the assessee.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Mfg. Company<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 30 (MP) <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

TRIBUNAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.
\nAdditional Evidence – Commissioner (Appeals) \u2013 S. 251<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where assessee voluntarily files additional evidence before Commissioner (Appeals), later is obliged to allow Assessing Officer a reasonable opportunity before admitting additional evidence. Where assessee under directions of Commissioner (Appeals) files additional evidence before him, there is no requirement for confronting Assessing Officer, with documents \/evidence entered by Commissioner (Appeals) at first appellate stage.<\/p>\n

Dy. DIT vs. Thorsesen Chartering Singapore (PTE) Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 24 SOT 433 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

Assessment \u2013 Validity \u2013 Notice \u2013 S. 143 (2), 143 (3)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notice under section 143(2) having been served in the status of individual without citing PAN, assessment on the basis of said notice on assessee HUF was without jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Karamshibhai M. Thumar (HUF) vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 534 (Ahd.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

B.
\nBusiness Expenditure – Premium on key Insurance \u2013 S. 37 (1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Premium on Keyman Insurance Policy is allowable business expenditure in view of CBDT Circular No. 762 dt. 18th Feb., 1998.<\/p>\n

Sunita Finlease Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT<\/em> (2008) 118 TTJ 263 (Bilaspur)<\/p>\n

Business Loss \u2013 Debentures \u2013 S. 29<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rights allotment of non convertible debentures with detachable warrants. Difference between face value of debenture with the warrant and sale value of debenture without warrant treated as loss, which is allowable under section 29.<\/p>\n

Medicare Investments Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT<\/em> (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 44 (Delhi)<\/p>\n

Bad Debt – Business Loss \u2013 S. 28(1), 36(1)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amount due to the assessee share broker on account of business dealings with the clients considered for computing income was allowable as bad debt being written off as irrecoverable.<\/p>\n

Amounts due from clients becoming irrecoverable and written off is allowable as business loss.<\/p>\n

Angel Capital & Debt Market Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 433 (Mum.) (Trib.) \/ (2008) 118 TTJ 351 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>:- \tRefer Bombay High court in CIT vs. P.R. Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd<\/strong>. Income Tax Appeal No. 79 of 2008, dated 26\/6\/2008 (unreported)<\/p>\n

Mumbai Tribunal in India Infoline Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/strong> (2008) 25 SOT 123 (Mum.) has held that the amount written off is not allowable as bad debt, however, the same may be allowable as business loss and matter remanded to the A.O., however, the judgment of Bombay High Court has not been referred. The Tribunal may have to follow the judgment of Bombay High Court or may have to refer to special Bench.<\/p>\n

C.
\nCapital Gains – Dissolution of Firm – S. 45(4)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee firm consisted of two brothers as two partners, of whom one retired and other took over the business along with all immoveable and moveable properties, liabilities, etc., subsequently, with admission of another person, a new partnership was drawn. The tribunal held there was dissolution of firm and the provisions of section 45(4) were attracted, accordingly the market value of capital asset on the date of dissolution was to be compared with the cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition as the case might be and it was chargeable to tax as capital gains.<\/p>\n

ITO vs. Marketers<\/em> (2008) 24 SOT 59 (Asr.) (URO)<\/p>\n

Capital Gain \u2013 TDR \u2013 S. 2(14), 45<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amount received by a member of the housing society from a developer holding TDR, who constructed additional floors in a building owned by the housing society. The A.O. was not justified in levying the Capital Gains Tax from the member of the housing Society.<\/p>\n

Deepak S. Shah vs. ITO<\/em>. ITA NO 1483\/M\/2001 Bench \u2018D\u2019 Asst. Year 1995-96 dt. 16-6-2008 (2008) 40 BCAJ 559 (August, 2008)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Access to Computer Software \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee share broker made payment for access to certain software used by share brokers for accessing NSE for controlling trading functions. The payment was required to be made periodically, the expenditure is revenue in nature.<\/p>\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>:- Special Bench in Amway India Enterprises & Co. vs. Dy. CIT<\/strong> (2008) 114 TTJ 476 (Del.) (SB) is considered.<\/p>\n

Angel Capital & Debt Market Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 433 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Expenditure \u2013 Website \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

By hoisting a website, no new capital asset came in to existence as the website contains the details of the assessee company, its product, directors, etc., which in a way promotes the business activity. By incurring the expenditure, the assessee has not acquired any software though the software itself may be needed to access the website. The website requires regular updates. Therefore, the expenses incurred for development of website can not be equated with acquisition of software or treat it as capital expenditure. The expenses being incurred just to promote the business interest are allowable as revenue expenditure.<\/p>\n

Polyplex Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 289 (Del.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

D.
\nDeduction – Actual Payment – Interest on Custom Duty \u2013 S. 43B<\/strong><\/p>\n

Interest on custom duty can not fall under the ambit of section 43B.<\/p>\n

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/em>. ITAT Mumbai Bench \u2018F\u2019, ITA No. 2824\/M\/2006 Asst. Year 2002-2003 dt. 31-7-2008 (2008) 40 BCAJ 25 (October, 2008) <\/p>\n

Deduction at Source – Credit for Tax Deducted at Source – Cash Method of Accounting \u2013 S. 199<\/strong><\/p>\n

Credit for Tax Deducted at source if income is not assessable in relevant assessment year. Credit shall be allowed on prorata basis and on same proportion in which such income is offered for taxation in different assessment years.<\/p>\n

Pradeep Kumar Dhir vs. ACIT<\/strong> (2008) 303 ITR (AT) 45 (Chand.) (TM)<\/p>\n

Deduction of Tax at Source \u2013 Salary – S. 199, 205<\/strong><\/p>\n

TDS certificate was not furnished by employer. TDS could not be recovered from assessee in view of section 205 of the Income Tax Act.<\/p>\n

Capt . J. G. Joseph vs. Jt. CIT<\/em> (2008) 303 ITR (AT) 395 (Mum.) <\/p>\n

Deemed Dividend \u2013 S. 2(22)(e)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee became a registered share holder of the lender company much after receiving the loan, hence, the loan amount can not be treated as deemed dividend.<\/p>\n

ITO vs. Sagar Sahil Investmnt (P) Ltd.<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 350 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

Deemed Dividend \u2013 Loan to a Company \u2013 S. 2(22)(e)<\/strong><\/p>\n

For purposes of section 2(22)(e), it is not necessary that payer or payee must have shareholdings in other company, if payment of any sum by way of advance or loan is made by one private Limited company to another private limited company in which there is a common shareholder having sufficient holding or beneficial interest in both companies, provisions of section 2(22)(e) can be invoked and those loans and advances shall be deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e). <\/p>\n

Skyline India Recruit.com (P) Ltd. vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 24 SOT 402 (Mum.) (SMC)<\/p>\n

Demerger \u2013 S. 2 (19AA), 47(vi)(b)<\/strong><\/p>\n

All the conditions have to be satisfied in section 2 (19AA) have to be satisfied in a case to be called a demerger for the purposes of section 47(vi)(b). In the present assessee no shares have been issued by resulting company and there being no consideration of section 2 (19AA) were satisfied and benefit of section 47(vi)(b) was not available.<\/p>\n

Avaya Global Connect Ltd vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 309 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

Demerger – Unabsorbed Depreciation and Unabsorbed Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research \u2013 S. 72(A)(7)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unabsorbed portion of capital expenditure and unabsorbed depreciation on scientific research in the hands of demerged company can not form part of either \u201caccumulated loss\u201d or \u201cunabsorbed depreciation\u201d in the hands of resulting company therefore, assessee i.e. the resulting company, is not entitled to carry forward and set off the said expenditure under section 72A(4).<\/p>\n

ITO vs. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 13 DTR 574 (Mum.) (Trib.) \/ (2008) 25 SOT 46 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

Depreciation – Intangible Asset – Right Acquired under Contract to Carry on Business \u2013 S. 32(1)(i) & 32(i)(ii)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee having acquired from a person rights of catering for HLL along with all paraphernalia and articles lying at the canteen of HLL for consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs, was entitled for depreciation under section 32(1)(i) in respect of such articles and paraphermalia and under section 32(i)(ii), in respect of right of catering which was a tool to carry on the business, hence, intangible.<\/p>\n

Skyline Catering (P) Ltd. vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 150 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

H.
\nHousing Project – S. 80IB(10)(a)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The expenses incurred for change of land use and administrative \/ other land development expenses incurred prior to statutory approvals can not result in to commencement of the project. On the facts the land was purchased in the year, 1996. Wall was constructed. WIP of this project on 31-3-1998 was stated to be Rs 10,17,615\/-. Original plan was expired after validity period of one year. Revised plan was approved and commencement certificate was issued on 30-9-2000, user of land for non agricultural purposes was permitted on 28-6-2001. The Tribunal held that the A.O. was not justified in denying the deduction u\/s. 80IB(10)(a) viz. commencement of the construction after 1-10-1998.
\nITO vs. Shri Vimal Chand Dhokia. ITAT Mumbai Bench \u2018A\u2019 ITA No. 5520\/M\/2005 Asst. Year 2002-2003 dt. 19-5-2008 (2008) 40 BCAJ 23 (October, 2008)<\/p>\n

I.
\nIncome – Capital or Revenue – Restrictive Covenant \u2013 S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consideration for transfer of marketing information for a period of three years was revenue receipt, while receipt under non-compete covenant for a period of five years was capital receipt.<\/p>\n

Dy. CIT vs. Lyka Labs Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 13 DTR 519 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

Income – Capital or Revenue Receipt \u2013 Share Application Money – S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Share Application Money forfeited by assessee in terms of prospectus and credited to Capital account is Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.<\/p>\n

Dy. CIT vs. Brijlakshmi Leasing & Finance Ltd<\/em>. (2008) 12 DTR 150 (Ahd.) <\/p>\n

Income \u2013 TDR – S. 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Transfer of TDR rights by individual members of assessee society, which was not owner of the land, to developer, against repairs of the building and construction of additional floor without receipt of any consideration by individual flat owners or the society and without allocating any area in the constructed portion did not give rise to any chargeable income or for that matter, capital gains.<\/p>\n

ITO vs. Lotia Court Co-op Housing Society Ltd.<\/em> (2008) 12 DTR 396 (Mum.) (Trib.) \/ (2008) 118 TTJ 199 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

Income – Waiver of Loan \u2013 S. 2(24)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Loan obtained and utilized for purchase of capital assets, hence, sum received by waiver of loan is capital receipt and not taxable.<\/p>\n

Fidelety Textiles P. Ltd vs. ACIT <\/em>(2008) 305 ITR 97 (Chennai) (A.T) (TM)<\/p>\n

Infrastructure Undertakings \u2013 Road \u2013 S. 80IA(4)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee, who only engaged in developing the infrastructural facility i.e. road and not engaged in the operating and maintaining the said facility, was entitled to the benefits of the deduction under section 80IA(4). The provisions of sub\u2013clause (c) of clause (1) of section 80IA(4) were in applicable to the instance case.<\/p>\n

ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd.<\/strong> (2008) 24 SOT 412 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

L.
\nLoss \u2013 Speculative \u2013 Derivative – S. 28(1), 43(5)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dealings in the derivative is a separate kind of transaction which does not involve any purchase and sale of shares and therefore loss on account of F & O transactions cannot be treated as, speculative loss.<\/p>\n

R. B. K. Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ITO<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 255 (Mum.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

M.
\nManufacture – Software Duplication \u2013 S. 80IA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Software duplication tanatamounts to manufacture hence, eligible for deduction under section 80 IA.<\/p>\n

Oracle India (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 371 (Del.) (Trib.)<\/p>\n

P.
\nPrecedent \u2013 Appeal – S. 260A<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dismissal of appeal on ground no substantial question of law arises, amounts affirmation of decision of tribunal on merits binding on Tribunal.<\/p>\n

Medicare Investments Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT<\/em> (2008) 114 ITD 34 (Delhi) (SB) \/ (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 44 (Delhi) (SB)<\/p>\n

R.
\nReassessment \u2013 S. 148<\/strong><\/p>\n

An attempt on part of Assessing Officer to probe into return further, without any fresh facts or change in law coming to his notice, would be a case of \u201creason to suspect\u201d and not \u201creason to believe\u201d. In the instant case, the only reason for reopening the assessment was that the balance sheet of the assessee revealed that he had received a gift of certain amount for which no details had been filed. There was no reference to any investigation carried out in the assessee\u2019s own case or in the case of the donor or any other evidence or material collected as a result of any investigation carried out by any investigating agency including the income tax Department in any case which could have afforded the required nexus or live link or rational connection with the belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly the reopening of assessment was void ab initio and bad in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n

ACIT vs. O. P. Chawala<\/em> (2008) 114 ITD 69 (Delhi) (TM)<\/p>\n

S.
\nSearch and Seizure – Block Assessment – S. 132A, 158BC<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jurisdiction to complete block assessment under section 158BC is conferred on the AO only on the physical handing over the books of accounts, assets, etc., requisitioned under section 132A to the IT authorities concerned.<\/p>\n

ACIT vs. Sonu Verma<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 257 (Asr.) (SB)<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure – Block assessment \u2013 Limitation – Prohibitory Order – Last Panchanama – S. 132, 158BE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessees premises having been completely searched on 29th July, 1997 when assets were inventorised and Panchanama prepared, limitation under section 158BE would be reckoned qua 29th July, 1997 and not qua 8th Sept., 1997 when the prohibitory order in respect of shares was revoked and second Panchanama was prepared as the second Panchanama could not be said to have been prepared in pursuance to warrant of authorization, hence, block assessment made on 30th Sept., was barred by limitation.<\/p>\n

Nandlal M. Gandhi vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008) 13 DTR 35 (Mum.)(Trib.)(TM) \/ (2008) 118 TTJ 289 (Mum.) (TM)<\/p>\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>:- \t1. See Smt. Krishna Verma vs. ACIT<\/em> (2008)
\n113 ITD 655 (SB) <\/p>\n

2. \tSpecial Bench is Constituted at Jodhpur in M\/s. Shree Ram Lime Products Ltd. Jodhpur<\/em>\tITA No. 27\/Ju\/06 C.O. No. 37\/Ju\/06 (A\/o. ITA No. 27\/JDPR\/06), Block A.Y. 1997-98 to 2003-04<\/p>\n

\t\u201cWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the period of limitation for completion of the block assessment as per sec. 158BE read with explanation 2 is to be reckonwed from the end of the month in which `last Panchanama on the conclusion of search is drawn on the assessee or `last Panchanam of the last authorization even when it is not last Panchanama drawn on the assessee and on or more valid panchanamas are drawn on the assessee thereafter in execution of any former authorization.\u201d <\/p>\n


\nOctober 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Penalty \u2013 Concealment \u2013 S. 271(1)(c) \u2013 Loss – Explanation 4<\/strong><\/p>\n

Explanation 4 is retrospective in nature and applicable retrospectively. When final assessed income is also loss penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be lived.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. (2008) 11 DTR 185 (SC).<\/p>\n

Provision for bad and doubtful debts- Cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes \u2013 S. 115JA<\/strong><\/p>\n

CIT vs. HCL Comnet Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

SLP against ruling of AAR- Not maintable<\/strong><\/p>\n

Foster’s Australia vs. CIT Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

Subsidy to encourage the setting up of sugar factories- Capital in nature<\/strong><\/p>\n

CIT vs. Ponni Sugars Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

HIGH COURTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Appeal \u2013 Tribunal – Duty<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Tribunal should independently examine the issues and ground in appeal and give its independent judgment and order thereon instead of recording that the order under appeal is well reasoned order. If the Tribunal does not give its independent opinion the High Court will be deprived of a considered view which would be of immense value.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Jadeja Consultants (P.) Ltd. (2008) 10 DTR 205 (Delhi).<\/p>\n

Bad Debt \u2013 S. 36(1)(viii) & 36(2)(iii).<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the amendment to S. 36(1)(vii) deduction on account of bad debt is allowable once the same is written off in the books of accounts and there is no requirement to establish that the debt had became irrecoverable.<\/p>\n

Suresh Gaggal vs. ITO (2008) 11 DTR 345 (HP)<\/p>\n

Block Assessment \u2013 Jewellery – Instruction of Board – S. 158B(b)<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the absence of any material found during Search having nexus with undisclosed income. No addition could be made in block assessment under Chapter X1V-B hence justified in deleting addition on account of jewellery having regard to CBDT instruction no 1916 dt. 11th May 2004.
\nCIT vs. M. S. Agarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP).<\/p>\n

Business Expenditure \u2013 Disallowance – Contribution to Provident Fund – S. 43B<\/strong><\/p>\n

Contribution made to employees contribution to provident fund before filing of return could not be disallowed under section 43B as it stood prior to the amendment, w.e.f. 1st April 2004. Deletion of second proviso to section 43B, by Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f. 1st April 2004, being curative in nature, is impliedly retrospective in operation.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Desh Rakshak Aushadhalaya Ltd. (2008) 10 DTR 125 (Uttarakhand).<\/p>\n

Business Expenditure – Exchange Loss \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

Exchange loss incurred by the assessee on refund of advance received from a foreign customer for supply of goods following cancellation of contract was a payment made on account of commercial expediency and wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, same is allowable.<\/p>\n

Loksons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 11 DTR 206 (Bom.).<\/p>\n

Capital Gains \u2013 Deductions \u2013 S. 48(2), 54 E<\/strong><\/p>\n

While computing long term capital gains, deduction under section 48 (2) is required to be allowed before exemption under section 54 E.<\/p>\n

Sercon (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 11 DTR 193 (Guj.)<\/p>\n

Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Stamp Duty and Registration \u2013 S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

Expenditure incurred on stamp duty and registration charges at the time of execution of lease agreement for taking on lease the fruit processing plant was allowable as revenue expenditure.
\nCIT vs. Global Associates (2008) 12 DTR 20 (HP). <\/p>\n

Collection and Recovery of Tax \u2013 S. 222<\/strong><\/p>\n

Power of tax Recovery officer under Rule 11 of second schedule relate only to properties ostensibly and apparently owned by assessee in default. If property is ostensibly and apparently in the name of third party, then if income tax authorities claim that said property is actually possessed or owned by assessee in default, they shall have to establish their claim in a Civil Court.<\/p>\n

Smt. Darshana Aggareal vs. Tax Recovery Officer (2008) 173 Taxmann 90 (HP).<\/p>\n

Deduction \u2013 S. 80 IA & 80 HHC<\/strong>
\nDeduction under section 80 IA is not to be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief under section 80 HHC.<\/p>\n

SCM Creations vs. ACIT (2008) DTR 247 (Mad.).<\/p>\n

Dividend Stripping<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as a genuine loss High Court affirmed the order of the special bench.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

Depreciation Mandatory \u2013 S. 80IB, 80 HHC <\/strong><\/p>\n

Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India and Singapore – S. 90, Article 5&7<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee a Singapore Telecasting Company deriving advertisement revenue from India through its dependent agent PE in India by way of contracts made outside India on principal to principal basis and paying fee to its agent on arms\u2019s length price basis would not be liable to tax in India in respect of advertisement revenue received by assessee in view CBDT circular no 742 dt. 2nd May ,1996 r.w. Art. 7 (1) of DTAA between India and Singapore nor would be advertisement revenue be taxable in India by virtue of CBDT Circular No 23 dt. 23 rd July 1969.<\/p>\n

Set Satellite (Singapore) PTE Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 11 DTR 313 (Bom.)<\/p>\n

Grant of right of development \u2013 No transfer of capital asset<\/strong><\/p>\n

CIT vs. Atam Prakash & Sons (2008) 12 DTR 1 (Del.)<\/p>\n

Principle of mutuality \u2013 Not applicable to Interest on Bank Deposit. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Devi Ahilya new Cloth Market Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 12 DTR 33<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure – Protective Assessment \u2013 S. 143(3), 158BA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Income which was assessed as undisclosed income for the block period can not be assessed on protective basis in regular assessment under section 143 (3).<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Wipro Finance Ltd. (2008) 10 DTR 281 (Kar.)
\n<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure \u2013 S. 158BB(1)(c)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once the assessee has paid advance tax, income shown in belated return filed after due date of search is not undisclosed income.<\/p>\n

CIT vs. Smt. Shoba Ramalingam (2008) 10 DTR 533 (Mad.).<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure – Statement – S. 132 (4) – Revised Return \u2013 S. 139(5)<\/strong><\/p>\n

A letter written by partner of assessee firm to department admitting undisclosed income higher that disclosed in statement under section 132 (4) ,with certain conditions and further stating that a revised return shall be filed accordingly is not a statement under section 132 (4) nor a revised return and can not be used as a basis for making assessment.<\/p>\n

CCIT vs. Pampapathi (2008) 11 DTR 82 (Kar.). <\/p>\n

TRIBUNAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Advance Tax \u2013 S. 209(1)(d)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tax deductible at source has to be excluded from tax payable while computing advance tax as provided in section 209(1)(d), even if tax had not actually been deducted.<\/p>\n

Dy. CIT vs. Pride Former SAS (2008) 24 SOT 59 (Delhi).<\/p>\n

Block Assessment – S. 158 BD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Proceedings under section 158BD, have to be initiated within reasonable time after completion of proceedings under section 158BC. Proceedings under section 158BD initiated beyond six years of conclusion of proceedings under section 158BC are barred by time even though there is satisfactory explanation for the delay.<\/p>\n

Saroj Nursing Home vs. ACIT (2008) 11 DTR 385 (Lucknow) (Trib). <\/p>\n

Block Assessment – Recording of Satisfaction – S. 158 BD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Recording of satisfaction is mandatory and imperative before assumption of jurisdiction under section 158 BD.<\/p>\n

Manoj Aggrwal vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (SB).<\/p>\n

Block Assessment \u2013 Limitation \u2013 S. 158 BE<\/strong><\/p>\n

It could not be said that passing of prohibitory order under sub section (3) of section 132 is in all cases only to extend period of limitation for making assessments, without any facts and circumstances or evidence justifying said conclusion and in bona fide case, where there is no such attempt and prohibitory order is passed in normal course and bonafide reasons, search can not be deemed to have been concluded on day on which said order was passed.<\/p>\n

Smt. Krishna Verma vs. ACIT (2008) 113 ITD 655 (Delhi)(SB).<\/p>\n

Business Expenditure – Education Expenses of son of Director \u2013S. 37<\/strong><\/p>\n

Expenditure incurred on foreign education of a director who is son of director is not allowable as deduction as the process of his admission to the foreign university had started even before he was made a director and his appointment as a director was simply to ruse to claim deduction of said expenditure which is personal obligation of his father and there is no nexus between the expenditure and the business of the company.<\/p>\n

Mustang Mouldings (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 11 DTR 577 (Mum.) (Trib.).<\/p>\n

Deduction – Deduction u\/s. 80IB has to be reduced \u2013 S. 80HHC, 80IB<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nodi Exports vs. ACIT (2008) 12 DTR 1 (Del.)<\/p>\n

Exchange rate gain difference – Allowable in the year in which exports are made.<\/strong><\/p>\n

ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (Special Bench Mumbai) Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

Grant of stay beyond 365 days by ITAT- Permissible before 1.10.2008 <\/strong> <\/p>\n

UPS Freight Services vs. ACIT Source: www.itatonline.org<\/p>\n

Income \u2013 Perquisite – Voluntary Gifts \u2013 S. 28(iv)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee never charging any fee from his followers for attending his lectures gift of Rs 122,70,795, received by the assessee on his 80th birth day from his followers out of regard and respect to the qualities of the assessee could not be charged to tax as \u201cbenefit\u201d or \u201cperquisite\u201d under section 28 (iv) of the Act.<\/p>\n

Nirmala P. Athavale vs. ITO (2008) 10 DTR 367 (Mum.)<\/p>\n

Interest \u2013 S. 234D<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 234 D, inserted by taxation laws (amendment) Act, 2003, w.e.f. 1st June 2003, being substantive in nature, has no retrospective effect, hence applicable from asst year 2004-05, only.<\/p>\n

ITO vs. Ekta Promoters (P.) Ltd. (2008) 10 DTR 563 (Delhi) (SB) \/ (2008) 113 ITD 719 (Delhi).<\/p>\n

No deduction to non resident \u2013 Not Discriminatory \u2013 S. 80HHE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Automated Securities vs. ITO (itatonline.org)<\/p>\n

Profits and Gains from New Industrial Undertakings – Duty Draw Back and DEPB \u2013 S. 80 IB<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee, manufacturer and exporter, was entitled to deduction under section 80 IB, in respect of duty draw back and DEPB received by it as same had a direct nexus with business of its industrial undertaking.<\/p>\n

Modi Exports vs. ACIT (2008) 24 SOT 526 (Delhi).<\/p>\n

Reassessment \u2013 change of status <\/strong><\/p>\n

Rajkumar Dugar (HUF) vs. ITO (2008) 12 DTR 16 (Del.)<\/p>\n

Search and Seizure \u2013 Apportionment of Seized Assets – Cash Seized \u2013 S. 132B, 158BC(d) ,234 B & 234C<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessee having requested the department to adjust the cash seized during the search against his tax liability. The department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance tax etc from the date it was seized.<\/p>\n

Sudhakar M. Shetty vs. ACIT (2008) 10 DTR 173 (Mum.).<\/p>\n

Unexplained Investment \u2013 S. 68,69, 69B<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where the assessee is not maintaining any books of account, section 68 will not be applicable, yet cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee under section 69 or section 69B.
\nUnless assessee by any clinching evidence, shows nature and source of money deposited in to bank account, same should be added as assesses\u2019s unexplained income.<\/p>\n

Manoj Aggrwal vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi).<\/p>\n

VDIS 1997<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even when entry has been made in books of account of assessee as required by Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) 1997, section 68 of Income Tax Act, can be invoked when declared asset is sold later and sale proceeds are credited in books of account.<\/p>\n

Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (SB).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

No time to read through voluminous case reports? Can\u2019t separate the wheat from the chaff? Fret Not! The KSA Legal team will bring you up-to-speed with the choicest of case-law so you can focus your attention only on the important …<\/p>\n

Digest of important case law<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-169","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}