-
Section 44AD of the Act has no relevance as the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.
K Kannan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2466 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 44AD
-
S. 271(1)(C) - Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bonafide. Where the provisions of the Act are clear, taking a different stand and claiming deductions would be prone to initiation of penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income.
CIT vs. HCIL KALINDEE ARSSPL
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2465 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
Section 43B, r.w.s 36(1)(va) - Provident fund - The employer's and employees' contribution are allowable as deduction if the amount of provident fund, etc., though belatedly, but is paid before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Per contra, if the amounts are not paid before the due date, then the amount cannot be allowed as deduction in the relevant year. However the deduction would be available in the year of payment. Since these two amounts were disallowed in the preceding year on the ground that these were not paid before due date of filing the return for the assessment year 2006-07, naturally the deduction would be available on payment of such amounts falling within the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration.
Euro Pratik Ispat (P.) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2464 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43B, r.w.s 36(1)(va)
-
Section 2(15) r.w.s 80G - The primary aim of the assessee was to train men and women as health professionals in the spirit of Jesus Christ and the said facility of training health professionals and medical care was to be provided without consideration of caste, race, creed, language and religion. Though in the primary paragraph of the objects of the assessee , it is mentioned that the primary aim was to educate and train christians men and women as health professionals but in actual fact, the assessee has been running and maintaining the Christian Medical College, Christian Dental College, Christian College of Nursing and other institutions, though on the ideals and principles in the spirit of christian services, but for training the professionals of any caste, creed, race, religion, etc. Similarly, the medical care is being provided by the assessee to all irrespective of their caste, creed or religion, etc. The learned authorised representative for the assessee was directed to furnish the information in respect of the concessions being allowed to the patients by the assessee and necessary evidence has been filed on record in this regard which clearly establish the case of the assessee that the said facilities of providing concessional medical and health care is provided to persons of any caste, creed or religion. The assessee was established and run by a minority christian community, but as the aim and object of the assessee is to train professionals in the field of medical and health-care and also to provide medical facilities in their hospitals to all persons of any caste, creed, race, religion, etc., we are of the view that the activities carried out by the assessee are charitable in nature and consequently, the assessee is entitled to the registration under section 80G(5) of the Act.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2463 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Income Tax Section 2(15) r.w.s 80G
-
Clause (2) of Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c)makes it clear that for the searches initiated before the 1st day of June, 2007, where in the course of search the assessee makes a statement u/s 132(4) and owns that he acquired any of such assets out of his undisclosed income, not so far returned, and further states the manner in which such income has been derived and pays tax together with interest if any in respect of such income, no presumption of concealment has to be drawn, notwithstanding the admission to that effect.
CIT vs. Sri Sidh Nath Geol
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2462 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c)
-
Sections 49(1), 55(1)(b) - Cost of Acquisition - Succession or Inheritance - Cost of Improvement - Even if the assessee had discharged the liability by making payment, this cannot constitute a part of the cost of acquisition of the property transferred. Further on applicability of section 50C, ITAT bench rejected assessee submission that the transactions were entered into well before 01/04/2003 and, therefore, provisions of section 50C are not applicable. as assessee has not been substantiated with enough evidence and documents that the land has been sold by the an agreement of sale in the earlier years i.e. 2000 and 2001
Smt. Farida Alladin vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2461 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Sections 49(1), 55(1)(b)
-
Merely applicability of sec 50C will not prove escapement of Income
Income-tax Officer vs. Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2460 (ITAT-AGRA)
-
S. 132 - Copy of search warrant should be given to the searched person. Defects in the panchnama do not invalidate the search or the s. 153A assessment proceedings.
MDLR RESORTS PVT. LTD vs CIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2459 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 132, 153A(1)
-
ITAT bench rejects setoff of Security Transaction Tax (STT) paid loang term capital loss against taxable gains. Uphold penalty for claiming incorrect claim. Explains SC ruling of Reliance Petro, Mak Data, PWC
Dy. DIT (IT) vs Asia Pacific Performance SICAV
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2458 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 10(38)
-
ITAT bench dismissed the Miscellaneous Application by the Assessee u/s. 254(2) against the ITAT ruling reported in (2013) 7 TaxCorp (A.T.) 32242 (MUMBAI). This bench observed that, the matter is principally and primarily factual; the legal mandate for the adjustment, which could though only extend to the expenditure actually incurred and booked in accounts, being provided by Explanation 1(f) to section 115JB of the Act. Further, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) on being required to show the basis on which it claims the expenditure disallowed u/s.14A as not representing the actual expenditure, so that no book adjustment in its respect could be made, or is to be made at a lower sum, conceded to the same as being only reasonable. The tribunal being also the same view; the said adjustment being at Rs.8.59 lacs as against the dividend income of Rs.256.38 lacs, found no basis for cancellation or for even a case for restoration of the matter to the assessing authority as having been made out and, accordingly, dismissed the assessee’s additional ground.
JSW Energy Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2457 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 254(2), Expl. 1(f) to section 115JB
-
S. 41(1): Liability outstanding for long period of time is assessable as income (despite no write-back in A/cs) if assessee is unable to prove genuineness of liability
Income Tax Department vs Shri Shailesh D. Shah
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2456 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 41(1)
-
Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amounts ‘payable’ and not to those amounts ‘paid’
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Eskay Designs
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2455 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Inter corporate deposits received cannot be considered as a loan or advance so as to visit an assessee with the hazards of section 2(22)(e)
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs P.C. Chandra Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2454 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Any right (including leasehold rights) which enables carrying on business effectively and profitably is an “intangible asset” & eligible for depreciation
Tirumala Music Centre (P) Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2453 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 32(1)(ii)
-
Extinguishment of right in the property - Sale/Transfer Deeds in respect of the building shall be executed both the parties in favour of purchaser/allottees on the completion of building. The capital gain can be charged only on receipt of the sale consideration and not otherwise. How can a person pay the capital gain if he has not received any amount. In the instant case, the assessee has honestly disclosed the capital gain for the assessment year 1998-99 to 2000-01, when the flats/areas were sold and consideration was received. During the year under consideration, only an agreement was signed. No money was received. So, there is no question to pay the capital gain.
CIT vs Smt Najoo Dara Deboo
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2452 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47) and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
-
Severe strictures passed on the AO for acts of “malfeasance by pleading apparent ignorance and acting in subterfuge and an underhand manner“. CBDT requested to train officers properly to avoid them taking the law into their own hands with complete impunity and disregard for the law
DCIT vs Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2451 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 254(2)
-
Payment made for transfer of copyright for a perpetual period of 99 years is not royalty but a ransaction for sale. TDS u/s 194J was not attracted and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could not be made.
K Bhagyalakshmi vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2450 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 194J, 40(a)(ia), clause (v) to Expl. (2) of S. 9(1)
-
Inter-corporate deposits (“ICDs”) are not “loans and advances” and are not assessable to tax as “deemed dividend” - S. 2(22)(e) refers to ‘loans’ and ‘advances’ and does not refer to a ‘deposit’. The fact that the term ‘deposit’ does not mean a ‘loan’ and that the two terms are two different & distinct terms is evident from the Explanation to S. 269T and S. 269SS of the Act where both the terms are used. Further, the second proviso to S. 269SS recognises the term ‘loan’ taken or ‘deposit’ accepted. Once it is accepted that the terms ‘loan’ and ‘deposit’ are two distinct terms which have distinct meaning then if only the term ‘loan’ is used in a particular section the ‘deposit’ received by an assessee cannot be treated as a ‘loan’ for that section. The Companies Act, 1956 also makes a distinction between a “loan” and a “deposit” in s. 58A, 269 & 370. The distinction between a “loan” and a “deposit” is that in the case of a “loan”, the needy person approaches the lender for obtaining the loan. The loan is lent at the terms stated by the lender. In the case of a “deposit”, the depositor goes to the depositee for investing his money primarily with the intention of earning interest. Also, s. 2(22)(e) enacts a deeming fiction and cannot be given a wider meaning than what it purports to cover. It has to be interpreted strictly. Thus, the view of the AO & CIT(A) that an Inter-corporate deposit is similar to a loan is not correct.
IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2449 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Court has clearly held a feature film to be a capital asset. A film could retain commercial value or viewership appeal over time, inasmuch as only viewership would provide value or yield revenue for its producer, even years after its first release, i.e., years after its production, so that it continues to be an asset of the business. Films generally appeal across generations and, consequently, have an enduring value. Master pieces or classics have been known to transcend not only time barriers but also of language and geography.
Asst. CIT vs A K Films Pvt. Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2448 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 80IB
-
S. 41(1): Liability outstanding for long period of time is assessable as income (despite no write-back in A/cs) if assessee is unable to prove genuineness of liability
Yusuf R Tanwar vs ITO
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2447 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 41(1)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.