-
HC - Compensation given to employees of sick Govt company under special package is exempt u/s 10(10B) and payment is not subject to TDS.
Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre vs. UOI and others
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12492 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 10(10B)
-
S. 68 bogus gains from penny stocks: If the AO relies upon the statement of a third party to make the addition, he is duty bound to provide a copy of the statement to the assessee and afford the opportunity of cross-examination. Failure to do so vitiates the assessment proceedings. A transaction evidenced by payment/receipt of share transaction value through banking channels, transfer of shares in and from the D-mat account, etc cannot be treated as a bogus transaction so as to attract s. 68
Sunil Prakash vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12491 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
S. 35D: Premium collected by a company on subscribed share capital is not “capital employed in the business of the Company" within the meaning of s. 35D so as to enable the claim of deduction of the said amount as prescribed u/s 35D
Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12490 (SC) · Section 35D
-
ITAT - Addition u/s 68 in the absence of any seized material are not sustainable.
Kinjalben R. Thakkar Versus Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 (1), ITO, Ward-7 (2), Ahmedabad
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12489 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55227&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since the claim of depreciation is not payment or expenditure in strict sense but the same is statutory allowance, so strictly the claim of depreciation will not be covered u/s 40(a)(ia). There is no question of deducting the TDS on capital expenditure..
DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Kolkata Versus M/s Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. and Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12488 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55231&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - If bank has charged 12% and it got subsidy of 5%, then it had charged the rate of 7% on the profit & loss account, then it would have enhanced its profit to this extent, and therefore, this interest subsidy is to be considered as eligible for grant of deduction under section 80IB(11).
M/s. AL Reza Food Versus ITO, Ward-2 (4), Bhavnagar
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12487 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55232&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Interest income on surplus funds deployed in fixed deposits and other investments etc. partakes the character of income attributable to business of production, sale or marketing of khadi and allied products in terms of section 10(23B).
Income-tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1 Rajkot Versus Udhyog Bharati
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12485 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55240&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Benefit of deduction u/s 80P cannot be denied merely on belated filing of return of income.
M/s Cheekilode Service Coop Bank Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), KOZHIKODE
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12484 (ITAT-COCHIN) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55242&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - If the assessee is able to establish that it was only a notional provision which was reversed afterwards then no TDS liability can be imposed on the assessee.
State Bank of India Versus CIT (A), Gulbarga
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12483 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55245&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Share premium is not part of ''capital employed'' for the purpose of computing Sec. 35D deduction.
Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12482 (SC) · Section. 35D
-
S. 271(1)(c): A disclosure of income, or withdrawal of claim for deduction, by the assessee after a specific s. 142(1)/ 143(2) notice is issued cannot be said to be a "voluntary disclosure" so as to avoid the levy of penalty. The argument that the earlier non-disclosure of income/ wrong claim for expenditure was due to "mistake" is not an acceptable defense (Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) followed, Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC) distinguished)
Samson Maritime Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12439 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 147: Entire law on reopening of assessments pursuant to audit objections explained in the context of the corresponding provisions of the Bihar Finance Act. If the AO disagrees with the information/ objection of the audit party and is not personally satisfied that income has escaped assessment but still reopens the assessment on the direction issued by the audit party, the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction
Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. State of Jharkhand
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12430 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 32: Title to immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Accordingly, a lessee cannot be said to be the "owner" for purposes of claiming depreciation. Under Explanation 1 to s. 32, the lessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction incurred by him but not on the cost incurred by the owner and reimbursed by the lessee
Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12429 (SC) · Section 32
-
S. 143(3): Loose papers which do not have full details are "dumb documents" and have no evidentiary value. The fact that the assessee sold goods at a concession does not mean that that the difference between sale value and market value can be assessed as income. The onus is on the AO to make inquiries from the buyers and bring incriminating evidence on record to show that the assessee sold flats at a higher rate
Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12415 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 143(3)
-
S. 220(6) stay of demand: CBDT Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede Instruction No.1914 but modifies it. Both have to be read together. The AO and CIT cannot straightaway demand payment of 15% of the dues but have to grant complete stay if the assessment is “unreasonably high pitched” or the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand leads to "genuine hardship" to the assessee”
Flipkart India Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12414 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 220(6)
-
S. 251: The CIT(A) has no power to enhance by discovering a new source of income which is neither discussed in the assessment order nor mentioned in the return of income filed by the assessee
Ram Infrastructure Ltd vs. JCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12383 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 251
-
S. 41(1)/ 115JB: Entire law explained whether remission of a loan can be assessed as income u/s 41(1) and if not whether the same can be added to "book profit" for purposes of MAT tax u/s 115JB
JSW Steel Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 41(1), 115JB
-
Taxability of "Other income" under DTAA: Income which is not chargeable under specific provisions of Articles 6 to 21 cannot be taxed under the residuary provision. Only income not covered by specific Articles (e.g. alimony, lottery income, gambling income, damages etc) can be charged as "Other income"
DCIT vs. Ford India Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12381 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied if the omission to offer income, and the wrong claim of deduction, was by oversight and the auditors did not point it out. Also, the failure of the AO to specify the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed is a fatal error
Wadhwa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12363 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 14A & Rule 8D: Disallowance under Rule 8D is not compulsory or mandatory. S. 14A(2) & Rule 8D cannot be invoked unless the AO examines the accounts and records the finding why the assessee's claim/ computation is not proper (entire law discussed and important judgements referred)
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12362 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 14A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.