-
HC - Entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt even though the source is the public who visit the cinema hall after it becomes operational
CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5158 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - If there are number of comparable uncontrolled transactions, then the arithmetic mean of such prices charged or paid should be identified. Neither the Revenue can pick a single highest price from a number of comparable uncontrolled transactions, nor the assessee can argue for taking the lowest of such comparable uncontrolled transactions
ITW India Limited vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5157 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 92C
-
ITAT - Reimbursement of the expenditure does not generate any income in the hands of the recipient and consequently there was no requirement of deduction of TDS and consequently the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked
AT & S India Pvt. Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5156 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
ITAT - In a situation in which an activity is not undertaken with a profit motive or on sound and recognized business principles, such an activity cannot be considered to be a business activity. Receiving fees simplicitor is not reason enough to hold that the activity is not a charitable activity.
Army Welfare Placement Organization vs. DIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5155 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 2(15)
-
HC - ‘Served from India’ brand can’t be construed to include only brands of Indian Companies, which are recognized as IndianIndian subsidiaries of foreign companies can claim SFIS benefit
Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5154 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - If the assessee has treated the scientific research expenditure as capital expenditure and claimed deduction under section 35(l)(iv) it shall have the same effect as unabsorbed depreciation, S.79 not applicable.
DCIT. vs. Tejas Networks Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5153 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 79
-
ITAT - A mere statement that trade advances were made for purposes of business is not sufficient to establish business purpose. In S.A. Builders's case transaction was between a holding company and a subsidiary company and thus business interest was evident.
ACIT vs Esveeaar Distillers Pvt Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5152 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - The two sections, i.e., s. 271(l)(c) and s. 271AAA, are not only worded differently, with thus different concomitant scopes, are rather mandated to operate exclusively. Section 271AAA requires substantiation of the manner in which the undisclosed income is derived by assessee as per statement recorded u/s 132(4), however in case of section 271(l)(c) there is no such requirement of substantiation.
ACIT vs Prakash Steelage Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5151 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 271AAA, 271(l)(c)
-
Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5150 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Veejmandal’s Workers Federation Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
Veejmandal’s Workers Federation Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5149 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - When there is no concealment of income qua the present assessment proceedings, there is no question of imposition of concealment penalty qua this assessment proceedings
Arvind Gupta vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5148 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Reimbursement of medical expense is allowable expenses and cannot be said to be perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act
Mr. Rajkamal R. Bajaj V/s ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5147 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 17(2)
-
ITAT - Income from Portfolio Management Schemes, whether to be assessed as Capital gains or business income should be decided as per objectives of the Scheme. ITAT lays down criteria to determine income characterization
ACIT vs Satish Kumar Gupta
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5146 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Sec 133(6) as amended by Finance Act, 1995 whereby words "enquiry or" were added to enhance power of Revenue to call information to even those cases where no proceedings were pending is constitutional valid. Even assuming that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, such fundamental right must be subject to restriction
Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd and others vs. UOI and others
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5145 (HC-KERALA) · Section. 133(6)
-
HC - Since issue was settled by earlier High Court order and no ground for pressing appeal against settled issue was given in "appeal memo", therefore, appeal file by the revenue is dismissed. High Court imposed cost personally on CIT in order to discourage casual appeals
CIT vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5144 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Stock Option Transfer Proceeds received by assessee having residential status of not ordinarily resident are not taxable, as the same is not accruing / arising in India
Anil Bhansali vs ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5143 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
HC - S. 2(22)(e) has to be construed strictly. If assessee is not a shareholder of lending co, s. 2(22)(e) does not apply even if funds are ultimately paid by Co in which assessee is a shareholder
CIT. vs. Jignesh P. Shah
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5142 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
HC - If the definition of "charitable purpose" is construed literally, it is violative of the principles of equality & unconstitutional. If the dominant object is not to carry on business or trade or commerce, then an incidental or ancillary activity for which a fee is charged does not destroy the character of a charitable institution
India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5141 (HC-DELHI) · Section 2(15), 10(23C)(iv)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed. Income from non-performing asset should be recognized only when the same was actually received
CIT vs. The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5140 (SC)
-
HC - The Government/Collector to assign reason as to why it wants to increase or decrease the circle rate which makes the citizens life dearer or costly, which is fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Circular arbitrarily enhancing Circle-rates is quashed.
Praveen Kumar Jain vs. State Of U.P.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5139 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.