-
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)
-
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) 2486 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 11 or u/s 10(23C)
-
S. 234A/B/C - Interest is mandatory, but it cannot be charged retrospectively when there was no receipt in the hands of assessee. No law is applicable retrospectively unless specified in the statute.
Ashwani Dhingra vs Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2485 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 234A/B/C
-
Applicability of Explanation to section 28 and section 73 of the Act cannot be brushed aside even when speculative transactions come within the meaning of section 43(5) of the Act and speculative business is deemed to be distinct and separate from other business. Section 73 has been specifically enacted for controlling the claims of loss carried forward from such business. Assessee might not be having a loss in the impugned assessment year, but if the net result was a loss, the treatment of that loss, once it arose out of speculative transactions would be entirely different from that of a normal business loss Assessment done for the impugned assessment year if confirmed, by accepting the contentions of the assessee would have an overflowing effect on the succeeding assessment years, where the trading results from the same business and different classes of activities could be different.
C D Equi Search Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2484 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Act Sections 28 & 73
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution covered by S. 43B
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2483 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Method of accounting can be changed if such change is bona fide and permissible under law
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus MAPIN PUBLISHING PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2482 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Even in a composite contract, off-shore profits cannot be assessed by dept. without showing its attribution to PE
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Versus The Director of Income-tax - 1
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2481 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution not covered by Section 43B
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2480 (HC-GUJARAT)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.