-
HC - AO is not empowered to consider all other items while making reassessment and should confine assessment to the item on which reassessment notice has been given.
J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaning vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8411 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
HC - Section 234E is constitutionally valid.
M/S LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT LTD. Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8405 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 234E
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) justified in case of short-deduction of TDS applying wrong section (deducted tax u/s 194C @ 2% as against 5% as prescribed u/s 194J).
CIT vs. P V S Memorial Hospital Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8404 (HC-KERALA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
SC - AY 1998-99 - TDS u/s 194C @ 2% and not u/s 194I @ 20% applicable while making payment for landing and parking charges to Airport Authority of India.
Japan Airlines Co Ltd vs CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8401 (SC) · Section 194I
-
S. 194-I: In deciding whether a payment is for "use of land", the substance of the transaction has to be seen. If the payment is for a variety of services and the use of land is minor, the payment cannot be treated as "rent"
Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8385 (SC) · Section 194-I
-
S. 40(a)(ia)/ 194C/ 194J: Deduction u/s 194C instead of u/s 194J renders the shortfall liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)
CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8384 (HC-KERALA) · Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C, 194J
-
Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto
ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8383 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - No subsequent event could put life into the Assessing Officer's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment when the reasons as originally recorded are still born. Retrospective amendment allowing addition of provision made for diminution of value of assets cannot impact reopening of notice, which was not on account of diminution in the value of the assets but on the ground that they were ascertained liabilities.
Godrej Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8364 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
AAR - Amount received by applicant-UK company for providing 'management services' and 'procurement services' to its Indian affiliate not fees for technical services under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA, in the absence of ‘make-available’ of services.
Measurement Technology Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8363 (AAR)
-
S. 271(1)(c): The rigors of penalty provisions cannot be diluted only because a small number of cases are picked up for scrutiny. No penalty can be levied unless if assessee's conduct is "dishonest, malafide and amounting concealment of facts". The AO must render the "conclusive finding" that there was "active concealment" or "deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars"
CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8352 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 244A: Interest on income-tax refund received by a non-resident is not effectively connected with the PE (Permanent Establishment) either on asset test or activity test. Accordingly such interest cannot be assessed as business profits but has to be assessed as "interest" under Article 11/ 12
DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8351 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 244A
-
Strictures passed regarding the "casual and callous" and "frivolous" manner in which senior officers of the dept authorize filing of appeals. Strictures also passed against counsel for acting as a "mouthpiece" of the Dept in persisting with unmeritorious appeals. CBDT directed to take appropriate action
DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8350 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 28(va)/ 115JA: non-compete consideration received prior to insertion of s. 28(va) is not taxable. Amount credited to reserves without a corresponding debit to the P&L A/c cannot be added to the "book profits"
CIT vs. Bisleri Sales Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8349 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28(va), 115JA
-
ITAT - CIT can direct AO to examine the genuineness of share capital with premium as proviso to Sec 68 inserted vide Finance Act 2012 which empowers AO to examine the genuineness of the share capital in the case of a company was only ‘clarificatory’.
Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8345 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
S. 41(1)/ 68: Unclaimed liabilities to creditors, even if fictitious and bogus, cannot be assessed u/s 41(1) in the absence of a write-back. The bogus credits can be assessed u/s 68 only in the year the credits were made and not in the year they are found to be not payable
Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8310 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 41(1), 68
-
Loss suffered on account of forex derivative contracts (Exotic Cross Currency Option Contracts) cannot be treated as speculative loss to the extent that the derivative transactions are not more than the total export turnover of the assessee. If the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, the loss in respect of that portion of excess transactions has to be considered as speculative loss because the excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover
Majestic Exports
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8309 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): In an appeal against an order passed by the AO to give effect to the ITAT's order, the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to enhance the assessee with respect to a new source of income or disallowance of expenditure
Cheil India Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8308 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 32: A licensee who is in full control of the building and can exercise the rights of the owner in his own right is entitled to depreciation
CIT vs. Bharat Hotels
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8307 (HC-DELHI) · Section 32
-
Bogus purchases: Manner of computing profits in the case of bogus purchases by an assessee who is not a dealer in the goods but has consumed the goods in his business explained
Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7278 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 271D penalty: The limitation period has to be computed from the date of issue of the show-cause notice by the AO. Penalty should not be levied if circumstances show no intention to contravene the law
Parin K. Rajwani vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7277 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271D
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.