In Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning’. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
itatonline.org
Only the latest & most important updates on taxation
Category: All Information
Special Bench judgement in Topman Exports reversed
In Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87 (Mum)(SB)(AT) the Special Bench held that for purposes of s. 80HHC only the “profit” on sale of DEPB entitlements (i.e. the sale value less the face value) was required to be considered. In an appeal by the department, this judgement has been reversed by the Bombay High today, 29th June 2010.
Hon’ble Justice F. I. Rebello appointed Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court
Hon’ble Justice Ferdinho I. Rebello of the Bombay High Court has been appointed Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
The Direct Tax Code Revised Discussion Paper 2010
Download The Direct Tax Code Revised Discussion Paper 2010
Retirement of Hon’ble President of ITAT
Hon’ble Shri. Vimal Gandhi, President of the Tribunal retired today, 3rd June 2010. Shri. Gandhi practiced as an Advocate from 1970 to 1985 and joined the Tribunal as a Judicial Member on 16.9.1985. He served as Vice President from 6.8.1997 to 30.10.2003 and was appointed President on 31.10.2003. He served as President for six years and seven months. When Mr. Gandhi was appointed President, the pendency of matters in the Tribunal was 180,666 and this has been brought down to 47,000 as on 1.4.2010. Mr. Gandhi started the system of refresher course for the Members of the ITAT. He was also instrumental in allotting the library premises to the Bar Association, Mumbai. Mr. Gandhi represented the Tribunal at national and international seminars of repute including at the United Nations where he made a presentation of successful practices at the ITAT. He also formulated broad guidelines on how judgements should be written for the benefit of Members.
Constitution of Tax Bench in the Bombay High Court (June 2010)
Constitution of Tax Bench in the Bombay High Court (June 2010): The Hon’ble Shri Justice Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & The Hon’ble Shri Justice J. P. DEVADHAR
Transfer of Hon’ble Members (March 2010)
In pursuance of the consultations of the collegium of the I.T.A.T consisting of the President and two senior-most Vice Presidents, the following Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have been transferred, in public interest, in the same capacity, to the Bench(es) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as shown against their names, with effect from the forenoon of 05.04.2010
Bombay High Court: Grouping of important matters
The Bombay High Court has directed that appeals involving the following issues should be grouped and placed for hearing at an early date.
S. 80HHC Netting Not Allowed: Bombay High Court
In an oral judgement delivered today (19th March 2010) in CIT vs. Asian Star Co Ltd ITA No. 200 OF 2009 and other cases, the Bombay High Court has dissented from the judgement of the Delhi High Court and held that the language of Expl. (baa) to s. 80HHC did not permit such netting off. It held that the Special Bench had traversed the limits of interpretation and virtually legislated in giving the deduction. It held that merely because s. 80HHC was an incentive provision was no ground for giving more deduction that what the statute permitted. It held that for purposes of Expl. (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of gross interest has to be reduced from business profits.
S. 194C does not apply to contract manufacturers: Bombay High Court
The question whether contract manufacturing agreements are subject to s. 194C has been decided by the Bombay High Court in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd ITA No. 2256 of 2009 and other matters in favour of the assessees. In an oral judgement pronounced today 12th March 2010, the Court held that while “works contracts” were subject to TDS under section 194C, “sales contracts” were not. It upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that the contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a “sales contract” which was not liable to TDS u/s 194C. The text of the judgement shall be made available shortly.
Recent Comments