-
Low Tax Effect Circular: The view of the two-judge bench in Suman Dhamija & Gemini Distilleries that CBDT's low tax Circular dated 09.02.2011 cannot be given retrospective effect cannot be followed as it is contrary to the three-judge bench verdict in Surya Herbal. A beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Circular dated 9.2.2011 has retrospective operation except for two caveats: (i) The Circular should not be applied ipso facto when the matter has cascading effect and/or (ii) where common principles are involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters
DIT. vs. S. R. M. B. Dairy Farming (P) Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13912 (SC)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Companies which invest share capital cannot be treated as bogus if they are registered and have been assessed. Once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such companies, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish their case. Reliance on statements of third parties who have not been subjected to cross examination is not permissible. Voluminous documents produced by the assessee cannot be discarded merely on the basis of statements of individuals contrary to such public documents
Pr. CIT. vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13911 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
S. 45/ 48: The scheme of the Act is to assess real income and not hypothetical income. The word "accrue" in "full value of consideration received or accruing" in s. 45 means that the assessee has a legally enforceable right to receive the sum. An amount which is payable only on fulfillment of conditions does not create an enforceable right and has to be excluded while computing capital gains
Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13904 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 45, 48
-
S. 43B: Advance deposit of central excise duty in the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) constitutes actual payment of duty within the meaning of s. 43B and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction of the said amount
CIT vs. Modipon Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13885 (SC) · Section 43B
-
S. 264 Revision: Powers and duties of the CIT while dealing with a revision application filed by an assessee explained
Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13884 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 264
-
Withdrawal of appeal: The Petitioner/ Plaintiff is the ‘dominus litis’ and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage/ benefit which he seeks to retain
M/s Sainath Enterprises vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13883 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Principles of mutuality: Entire law on whether a club whose membership is also open to the persons from the public and whose management is looked after by officials of HUDA is eligible to claim the benefits of "mutuality" explained in the light of Banglore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) and other judgements
ITO. vs. Gymkhana Club
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13826 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
It is trite that when two views are possible, one which favours the assessees has to be adopted. Circulars are binding on the Department. The Government itself has taken the position that where whole of excise duty or service tax is exempted, even the Education Cess as well as Secondary and Higher Education Cess would not be payable. This is the rational view
SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13825 (SC)
-
HC - Under Sec. 226, the money which belong to the assessee shall only be available for payment as income-tax dues however, money lying in assessee’s bank account to the extent of decree passed did not belong to it as assessee was holding such money in trust.
Sunil Kumar vs. Stock Guru India Ltd. & Anr.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13821 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Nine month lease rental receipt by way of forfeiture of security deposit cannot be given any different treatment then the lease rental receipt which qualify for deduction u/s. 80IAB.
Quadron Business Part Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13820 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 80IAB
-
ITAT - In view of the benefit conferred by Article 6 of India-Kenya DTAA, rental income earned by a bank from house property at Kenya is not taxable in India. Any notification or circular cannot alter the nature of income that has been specifically included in DTAAs.
Bank of India Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13817 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Amount received in respect of sublicensing of patented technical know-how was taxable as business income and not as capital gains in the absence of any ‘extinguishment’.
Bosch Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13816 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - No addition u/s 68/69/69A can be made on the basis of print outs taken from the computer back–up impounded and seized and found from a third party.
Ms. Katrina (Kaif) Rosemary Turcotte Vs. Asstt. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13810 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Sales tax subsidy received by the assessee from from the Government of Haryana (post accomplishment of project) was revenue receipt chargeable to tax.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13809 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Working directors were well qualified and looked after general administration, finance apart from research activity, production and marketing. Deduction allowable for commission (paid within company law limit) to director-cum-shareholder.
S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13808 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - In addition to assessee’s claim u/s. 54EC, exemption u/s 54EC available on minor’s income.
Shri Bimal Desai Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13807 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 54EC
-
ITAT - Since assessee is seeking extension only on the ground that it is proposing to appeal against the recent co-ordinate bench order before the High Court and also intends to file miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, this cannot be a valid ground for stay of demand.
Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13806 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
S. 263 Revision: The failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power u/s 263, as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity. The lack of opportunity at the revisional stage does not vitiate the entire order, or the proceedings. It is a curable defect. The CIT has power to consider all aspects which were the subject matter of the AO’s order, if in his opinion, they are erroneous, despite the assessee’s appeal on that or some other aspect
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. Pr CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13805 (HC-DELHI) · Section 263
-
S. 145(2) ICDS: S. 145 (2) has to be read down to restrict power of the Central Government to notify ICDS that do not seek to override binding judicial precedents or provisions of the Act. If s. 145 (2) is not so read down it would be ultra vires the Act and Article 141 read with Article 144 and 265 of the Constitution. The ICDS which overrule the provisions of the Act, the Rules thereunder and the judicial precedents applicable thereto, are struck down as ultra vires the Act. To that extent, Notification Nos. 87 and 88 dated 29.09.2016 and Circular No. 10 of 2017 issued by the CBDT are also held to be ultra vires the Act and struck down as such
The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13804 (HC-DELHI) · Section 145(2)
-
HC - Opportunity of hearing under Sec 263 proceedings explained. Even though there is no requirement in law to issue a notice u/s. 263, but, once, the DIT chooses to issue, he should specify as to why the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Cairn India Ltd. vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13803 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 263
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.