-
S. 40A(3): There is a difference between “crossed cheque” and “account payee cheque”. Payment by crossed cheque attracts s. 40A(3) disallowance
RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3237 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Exemption u/s 11 - Besides fulfilling other prerequisites for exemption u/s. 11, as stipulated in sections 11 to 13 of the Act the appellant did not charge any money, by whatever name it is called, i.e. donation, building fund, auditorium fee etc., over and above the prescribed fee for the admission of the, student, the appellant would be entitled for exemption u/s. 11, even if the, notification u/s. 10(23C) of the Act has not been obtained by it.
Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Farah Educational Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3236 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
No s. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance for investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures
JM Financial Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3235 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 40A(2) - Salary/remuneration to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director expenditure is excessive or unreasonable - Reasonableness is to be judged from the angle of a businessman rather than from the angle of the AO.
CIT vs Consulting engineering Group Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3234 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · 40A(2)
-
MAT credit - calculation of surcharge and educational cess - Rule 12 (1) (a) and form 1 cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act - Tax in question has to be computed on the Total income as assessed under the normal provisions in the Income Tax Act and surcharge and education cess has to be added to such Tax, and there after credit of Tax paid u/s 115 JAA has to be granted.
3F Industries Ltd vs Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3233 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
No s. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance for investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures
JM Financial Limited vs. ACIT.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3232 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statement
Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3231 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
If it is held by the dept that no income arose to the recipient then notices to payer for TDS default u/s 201 & s. 40(a)(i) disallowance are bad
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs. DDIT.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3229 (HC-DELHI)
-
Entire law on formation of AOP & taxability of off-shore supply & services explained
Linde A. G. vs. DDIT.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3228 (HC-DELHI)
-
Even a solitary transaction of redemption of (non-tradeable) mutual fund units amounts to a business activity for an assessee dealing in securities
CIT vs. Pooja Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3227 (HC-P&H)
-
Not keeping separate books together with frequent transactions means that gains from shares have to be assessed as business profits instead of as STCG
CIT vs. M/s D&M Components Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3226 (HC-DELHI)
-
CBDT Instruction 3 of 2011 which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals (exceeding Rs 10 lakh tax effect) to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court has prospective effect, instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011. CBDT being fully conscious of its limitation. Larger bench of High court reverse Division bench ruling.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SHAMBHUBHAI MAHADEV AHIR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3225 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
40(a)(ia) - Retrospectively or Prospectively –TDS paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1), shall be allowed as a deduction.
Rock Tech Engineers vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3224 (ITAT-PUNE) · 40(a)(ia)
-
When the assessee did not debit service tax amount to the P&L Account as an expenditure there was no question of disallowing deduction u/s 43B
Ritco Logistic Pvt. Ltd vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3223 (ITAT-DELHI) · 43B
-
Hon`ble HC upheld the order passed by ITAT deleting the addition u/s 158BC
COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs ORISSA STEVEDORES
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3222 (HC-ORISSA) · 158BC
-
Relationship between the assessee and the distributor / stockists was that of principal to principal and hence, it could not be said to be a commission payment within the meaning of explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Intervet India Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3221 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Sections 10(37), 45(5) - Capital gain exemption on compensation received when certain agricultural lands of assessee were acquired - Cultivation of a land through hired labourer or through member of ones family - Merely because the assessee was not residing close to the land or was also pursuing some other business would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the land was not used for agricultural purposes by the assessee. Assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.10(37) of the Act.
CIT vs VIKRAMBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3220 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 10(37), 45(5)
-
HC denied exemption u/s 12A, creation of committee does not permits Committee to enter into the agreement which enabled it to set up a joint venture for a hospital, on revenue sharing basis.
DIT vs THE GURU HARKISHAN MEDICAL TRUST
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3219 (HC-DELHI)
-
Deduction under section 80IB(10) - Mere sale of open land or unused FSI as part of the housing project where utilization of the FSI is way short of permissible limits cannot be said to have been derived from such housing project. Terms “derived from”, “arising out of” and “attributable to” are often times used in the context of income tax in different connotation. In the present case, the facts are somewhat different. The assessee, in the process of developing two housing projects, had utilized 9595.64 sq.m of buildable area against the maximum permissible area of 13004 sq.m and in other cases, put up construction of 5997.28 sq.m against maximum permissible construction on 8127.75 sq.m. Under utilization, if at all was in the marginal range of 25% to 30%. As held by HC in case of Moon Star Developers, every case of even marginal under utilization of FSI would not be hit by disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB.
CIT vs SHREENATH INFRASTRUCTURE
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3218 (HC-GUJARAT) · 80IB (10) read with Section 80IB(1)
-
Capital Gain - LTGC or STCG - Date of allotment which is relevant for the purpose of computing a holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. The assessee acquired possession of the plot on 12.12.2005 and sold through a registered sale deed dated 9.1.2008. The assessee had acquired beneficial interest to the property at least 96% of the amount was paid i.e. by 3.10.1999. Hence, Assessee had acquired interest of the kind that can enable him to say that he “held” the asset for more than 36 months to entitle him to the benefit of long term capital gain.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs K RAMAKRISHNAN
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3217 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.