-
Transfer Pricing: Whether a transaction is entered into at an Arm’s Length Price or not must depend upon the facts of each case relating to the transaction per-se. The fact that the transaction has not yielded results or has resulted in a loss is irrelevant
Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11001 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt and has to be reduced from the cost of the flat. Amount received from builder to meet rental costs during the redevelopment is also not taxable as income
Jitendra Kumar Soneja vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11000 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Capital Gains: Mere fact that the assessee is shown as a co-owner of the property does not mean that the capital gains are partly assessable in her hands if the facts show that the other co-owner bought the property from his own funds and showed it as his sole property in the balance sheet
ITO vs. Dr. Vandana Bhulchandani
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10999 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Compensation for breach of promise to provide land to the assessee is not compensation for loss of profits but is for injury caused to the profit making apparatus. Such compensation is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax
Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10998 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
AAR - Where contract of (offshore supply of goods and materials) is a composite one then the entire amount received by the applicant from L&T would be taxable in India.
In Re : MERO Asia Pacific (P.) Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10997 (AAR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66163&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AAR - The Revenue has given a strange method of working out capital gains which is completely on notional basis and is based on presumptions. Capital gains have to be calculated on real gains and not on the basis of some notional values. In this case no consideration accrues to the amalgamated company and no capital gains is chargeable to tax.
In Re : Banca Sella S.P.A.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10996 (AAR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10729&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
AAR - The applicant is a resident of Mauritius and a valid tax residency certificate has been produced. Therefore the treaty will apply and the applicant is not liable to tax in India.
In Re : Shinsei Investment I Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10995 (AAR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10728&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - There is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessees to estimate the transit breakages so as to justify creating of provision for such breakages.
SEAGRAM DISTILLERIES (P) LTD. (NOW PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, NEW DELHI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10994 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66162&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Income from rubber plantations situated in Malaysia not taxable in India.
CIT. Vs. M. R. M. Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10989 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - Assessee’s appeal ‘withdrawn’ on the ground that assessee was going to disclose income under the IDS 2016.
Praveen Kumar Mittal vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10988 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Foreign currency expenditure towards recharge of travel, hotel, boarding and lodging facilities, constitutes reimbursement and thus allowable as no TDS was required to be deducted.
CISCO Systems Services B.V. India Branch vs. JDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10987 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Service tax deposited by the customers as a part of assessee’s royalty income not taxable.
Meridien SA vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10986 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Without using the services of the directors, the key decisions of the business cannot be taken. Therefore, it is essential to give remuneration as per Rules and Regulations of the company. Therefore, expenditure is allowable as business expenditure.
Rangoli Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 15 (2), New Delhi.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10985 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51058&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Joint ownership of house with the wife. Assessee (husband) claimed that the installments towards the repayment of the loan taken from bank for purchase of the property were paid by him only not by his wife. Claim on account of loss from house property allowed.
Sh. Ankit Mittal Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (1), Gurgaon
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10984 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51059&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - While calculating deduction under Chapter VI-A , depreciation, whether claimed or not, cannot be foisted upon the assessee even prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to S.32 (1) with effect from 01/04/2002.
Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10983 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66126&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since entire amount which was subject to capital gain tax had not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor were the unutilized amounts deposited in the notified Bank Accounts, No exemption u/s 54F(4).
Humayun Suleman Merchant Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City, XVII, Mumbai and Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10982 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Merely because there were some minor discrepancies in some of documents submitted by assessee would not be sufficient to conclude that the Assessing Officer did not make a proper inquiry. Revision u/s 263 not justified.
2016 (9) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10981 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66138&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In absence of any case made out by the A.O. to show that Section 115A and Section 9(1)(vii) are not applicable in the present case, therefore the income of the assessee with regard to PDPL project is liable to tax @ 10% as has been claimed by the assessee.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) -I, Ahmedabad Versus Joint Stock Company Zangas
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10980 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51051&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee was himself ill due to which he could not maintain essential books, hence same constitutes a reasonable cause u/s 271B. Penalty deleted.
Shri Parthsarthi Naidu Versus ITO, Ward 2 (1), Indore.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10979 (ITAT-INDORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51052&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AAR - Capital-gains to a Mauritian company on transfer of shares of Indian asset management and trustee companies not taxable under article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA.
Shinsei Investment I Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10969 (AAR)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.