-
ITAT bench following the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the reported in (2013) 7 TaxCorp (DT) 55034 (ALLAHABAD) and the recent order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2267 (ITAT Bangalore), hold that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made only with reference to the amounts that are outstanding as on 31st March, 2009. Therefore, to examine whether the payments made to eight of the sundry creditors mentioned in the CIT's order is outstanding as on 31.03.2009, we remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Ariand Marakala.
Varun Transport vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2506 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Rejecting books of account - Assessing Officer could not refer matter to DVO for valuation of investment made by assessee for construction of factory building.
Commissioner of Income-tax vs Raghuraji Agro Industries (P.) Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2505 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Unexplained investment u/s 69 was sustained - No reference for valuation to the DVO can be made without rejecting the books of account. The AOs should keep this position of law in mind before making references to the DVO for valuation.
Nirpal Singh Prop. M/s Aujla Filling Station vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2504 (HC-P&H) · Income Tax Section 69
-
S. 54EC - Capital gain - Sale got completed when sale deeds were registered, handing over the possession or date of full payment irrelevant.
Late R Krishnaswamy vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2503 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 54EC
-
S. 2(14) – Capital gains on sale of agriculture land - There is no enabling provision in the income tax prescribing that even if the assessee’s income is exempt by a provision, then it can be forcibly brought into the tax net by assuming the assessee’s activity to be adventure in the nature of trade. The sale of investment portfolio is always taxed as capital gains. Thus agriculture land in terms of sec. 2(14) i.e. not being an asset; its transfer will neither attract capital gain tax nor can be treated as business income. Therefore the assessee’s gains were profits from sale of specified agriculture land which does not come within the definition of asset as prescribed u/s 2(14) and by virtue of sec. 2(1A)(a) read with sec. 2(14)(iii) r.w.s. 10(1) the assessee’s gains from sale of such agriculture land are exempt income.
Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2502 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section S. 2(14)
-
Section 68 - Cash credit – Existence of the creditor`s creditworthiness is one of the most important factors. The assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, addition made of Rs. 10 lac by the AO has been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2501 (HC-AP) · Income Tax Section 68
-
CIT-DR’s behaviour termed “totally irresponsible, contemptuous and malicious”. Costs imposed & action for contempt of court to be initiated.
ACIT vs Laksons Footwear P. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2500 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 32(1)(ii) - Non compete fee is not an asset, on which depreciation could be allowed. Though the goodwill is an asset, but non compete fee is an arrangement provided by one contracting party to the other to allow the other party to stand and establish itself in the business/market and in any case, non compete fee does not figure in the relevant provision and does not fall within the ambit of any other commercial or business rights.
Gujarat Glass Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2499 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 32(1)(ii)
-
Established way of computation of income where ever there is recycling of cash in a financial business to work out the peak credit.
ACIT vs Jayesh Finance
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2498 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The observations of the CIT are not based on any material and fall in the realm of conjectures and surmise, and do not entitle the provisions of Section 263 of the Act to be invoked so as to revise the assessment order, without it containing any error and without any prejudice being caused to the interests of the revenue by the passing of such assessment order. CIT has himself taken note of the fact that in the earlier years, the claim of the assessee concerning the investment activities and profit and loss there from stands accepted as capital gains.
Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2497 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The payment of Rs. 26,45,59,780/-, was payment of salary and not payment on account of fees for technical services. Section 40(a)(i) of the Act will not apply as, the payment, was neither royalty or fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under the Income Tax Act.
Director of Income Tax & another vs Dolphin Drilling Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2496 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
The payment of Rs. 26,45,59,780/-, was payment of salary and not payment on account of fees for technical services. Section 40(a)(i) of the Act will not apply as, the payment, was neither royalty or fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under the Income Tax Act.
Director of Income Tax & another vs Dolphin Drilling Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2495 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 32(1)(ii) - Non compete fee is not an asset, on which depreciation could be allowed. Though the goodwill is an asset, but non compete fee is an arrangement provided by one contracting party to the other to allow the other party to stand and establish itself in the business/market and in any case, non compete fee does not figure in the relevant provision and does not fall within the ambit of any other commercial or business rights.
Gujarat Glass Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2494 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 32(1)(ii)
-
Article 226 - Constitutional right, statutory right, legal right or customary right recognized and protected by law alone can be enforced through courts of law under Article 226 of constitution of India. Even a concession granted by any authority, de hors the Statutory Rules, would not confer any right on the parties, to seek for a mandamus to be enforced in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
SRI NAGA NANTHANA MILLS LTD vs THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2493 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Hon`ble High court directed the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claim of the applicant for recovery of PF contribution, dues, interest, panel damages and compensation if any and the Official Liquidator shall also re-compute the amounts payable to respective parties afresh and to recover the amount, if any paid is excess to the secured creditors and workman and others and to make re-appropriation of the same to the respective parties in accordance with Law.
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction vs Sri Murugan Mills Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2492 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Hon`ble High court directed the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claim of the applicant for recovery of PF contribution, dues, interest, panel damages and compensation if any and the Official Liquidator shall also re-compute the amounts payable to respective parties afresh and to recover the amount, if any paid is excess to the secured creditors and workman and others and to make re-appropriation of the same to the respective parties in accordance with Law.
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction vs Sri Murugan Mills Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2491 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Income Tax Sections 35ABB - The expenditure incurred towards licence fee is partly revenue and partly capital. Capital expenditure will qualify for deduction as per Section 35ABB of the Act. Deem sums paid on telecom licenses as capital exp., it is operative when exp. is of capital nature.
CIT vs Bharti Hexacom Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2490 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Sections 35ABB
-
Capital Gain or Business Income – Assessee has not purchased any other land and has sold the property inherited by him which is itself was agricultural land for more than 20 years. The gain is to be considered as capital gain.
B VENU MADHAV vs ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2489 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income tax - Sections 45, 54EC
-
Adjustment for tax credit u/s 115JAA - The amount paid by the assessee as a MAT Company can be adjusted during the period u/s 115 JAA. There is no provision under the Act to refund the amount which has been admitted and which has been paid by the assessee as MAT Company.
B R K Finance And Inv. Company Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer And Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2488 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 115JAA
-
Assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) in case it collected any money by whatever name it is called i.e., donation, building fund, auditorium fund etc. etc., over and above the prescribed fee for admission of students.
ADIT vs St. Augustin Educational Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2487 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 11, 10(23C)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.