-
HC - Writ allowed - Notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 quashed as reopening was under the directives and compulsion of the audit party which is impermissible.
Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13210 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
ITAT - Stay extension granted beyond 365 days. Follows Delhi HC ruling in Pepsi Foods which had attained finality post Revenue’s SLP disposal by SC.
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13209 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Even though capital asset sold by assessee was the ‘land appurtenant to the house’, and not the ‘residential house’, exemption u/s 54 allowed.
Sh. Adarsh Kumar Swarup vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13208 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 54
-
HC - Since assessee made substantial investment of capital and loan and the new unit has separate premises, separate labour force, separate license and electricity substantial expansion of existing business qualifies for Sec. 80IB benefit.
ACIT. vs. Leo Fasteners
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13207 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80-IB
-
S. 153B(2)(a): Merely visiting the premises on the pretext of concluding the search but not actually finding anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second panchnama so as to extend the limitation period for passing the s. 153A assessment order. In such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a panchnama at all. The visit and the panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to s. 153B (2) (a) of the Act
Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13206 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153B(2)(a)
-
Interest on NPAs: While determining the tax liability of an assessee, two factors come into play, namely, (i) the recognition of income in terms of the recognised accounting principles and (ii) the computation thereof in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While the computation of taxability is solely governed by the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the accounting principles have no role to play, the recognition of income stands on a different footing. Insofar as income recognition is concerned, the RBI Directions prevail in view of s. 45Q of the RBI Act and s. 145 has no role to play. The AO has to follow the RBI Directions
Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13205 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Whether subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt: If the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, it means that the policy makers envision greater profitability as an incentive for investors to expand units. Such subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits
CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13188 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 5(2)(a): Salary of a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on-board foreign ships accrues outside India and is not assessable in India even if received by the seafarer into the NRE bank account maintained in India by the seafarer. CBDT Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017 is clarificatory
Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13187 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 5(2)(a)
-
GST on legal services: There is no clarity whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. Legal practitioners are under genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered. The Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by the Court
JK Mittal & Co. vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13175 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Mere fact that parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share capital money were not traceable and did not appear before the AO in response to summons does not mean that the transaction can be treated as bogus if the documentation shows the genuineness of the transaction
CIT. vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13170 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
S. 92A Transfer Pricing: The mere fact that an enterprise has de facto participation in the capital, management or control over the other enterprise does not make the two enterprises "associated enterprises" so as to subject their transactions to the rigors of transfer pricing law
Pr. CIT. vs. M/s Veer Gems
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13169 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 92A
-
ITAT - Expenditure incurred to earn exempt income determined u/s. 14A cannot be added while computing book profits for u/s. 115JB.
Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13161 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 14A
-
S. 158BFA(1): If the delay in filing the return is completely attributable to the revenue for non-furnishing of copies of the documents and not giving inspection of the documents seized within a reasonable time after making the demand, the interest has to waived. Though s. 158BFA(1) does not (pre 2002) confer the power to waive interest, it has to be read in on equitable construction because the subject cannot be made to pay for the negligence of the Officers of the State (J. H. Gotla 4 SCC 343 followed)
Mahavir Manakchand Bhansali vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13133 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 158BFA(1)
-
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act
CIT. vs. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13132 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 221
-
S. 147: If the subject matter of the reopening is also the subject matter of appeal, the principle of merger would apply. There cannot be two separate considerations to the same subject matter relatable to the income, one by the appellate authority and another by the AO in fresh assessment. Scope of third proviso to s. 147 explained
Radhaswami Salt Works vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13131 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 147
-
Transfer Pricing ALP of foreign advances: If the advances are made to a AE situated abroad, the LIBOR rate has to considered to determine the Arms Length interest and not the interest rate in India (SBI PLR). This would be reasonable and proper in applying commercial principles
CIT. vs. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13103 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Certified copy of Order Sheet: It is the right of every assessee to seek certified copies of entire order sheet of any assessment proceeding on payment of charges. The certified copies have to be handed over forthwith on payment
Shankarlal Khaitan vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13102 (HC-ORISSA)
-
S. 69C/ 153C: An admission of the assessee which is retracted cannot be the basis of addition. The allegations made by the authorities have to be supported by actual cash passing hands. The addition cannot be sustained in the absence of material which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another and if the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages and if none of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands
CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13095 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 69C, 153C
-
S. 147/148: Law on validity of reopening of assessment when the AO is acting on the dictates of the audit party and is not applying his own mind explained
Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13089 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections. 147, 148
-
S. 143(2) notice: If the Department fails to produce evidence relating to the issue and service of the s. 143(2) notice, an adverse inference has to be drawn as per s. 114 of the Evidence Act. The s. 143(3) assessment order has to be held invalid and void ab initio
ITO. vs. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13088 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 143(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.