-
ITAT - If the assessee is able to establish that it was only a notional provision which was reversed afterwards then no TDS liability can be imposed on the assessee.
State Bank of India Versus CIT (A), Gulbarga
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12483 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55245&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Share premium is not part of ''capital employed'' for the purpose of computing Sec. 35D deduction.
Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12482 (SC) · Section. 35D
-
S. 271(1)(c): A disclosure of income, or withdrawal of claim for deduction, by the assessee after a specific s. 142(1)/ 143(2) notice is issued cannot be said to be a "voluntary disclosure" so as to avoid the levy of penalty. The argument that the earlier non-disclosure of income/ wrong claim for expenditure was due to "mistake" is not an acceptable defense (Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) followed, Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC) distinguished)
Samson Maritime Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12439 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 147: Entire law on reopening of assessments pursuant to audit objections explained in the context of the corresponding provisions of the Bihar Finance Act. If the AO disagrees with the information/ objection of the audit party and is not personally satisfied that income has escaped assessment but still reopens the assessment on the direction issued by the audit party, the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction
Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. State of Jharkhand
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12430 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 32: Title to immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Accordingly, a lessee cannot be said to be the "owner" for purposes of claiming depreciation. Under Explanation 1 to s. 32, the lessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction incurred by him but not on the cost incurred by the owner and reimbursed by the lessee
Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12429 (SC) · Section 32
-
S. 143(3): Loose papers which do not have full details are "dumb documents" and have no evidentiary value. The fact that the assessee sold goods at a concession does not mean that that the difference between sale value and market value can be assessed as income. The onus is on the AO to make inquiries from the buyers and bring incriminating evidence on record to show that the assessee sold flats at a higher rate
Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12415 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 143(3)
-
S. 220(6) stay of demand: CBDT Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede Instruction No.1914 but modifies it. Both have to be read together. The AO and CIT cannot straightaway demand payment of 15% of the dues but have to grant complete stay if the assessment is “unreasonably high pitched” or the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand leads to "genuine hardship" to the assessee”
Flipkart India Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12414 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 220(6)
-
S. 251: The CIT(A) has no power to enhance by discovering a new source of income which is neither discussed in the assessment order nor mentioned in the return of income filed by the assessee
Ram Infrastructure Ltd vs. JCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12383 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 251
-
S. 41(1)/ 115JB: Entire law explained whether remission of a loan can be assessed as income u/s 41(1) and if not whether the same can be added to "book profit" for purposes of MAT tax u/s 115JB
JSW Steel Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 41(1), 115JB
-
Taxability of "Other income" under DTAA: Income which is not chargeable under specific provisions of Articles 6 to 21 cannot be taxed under the residuary provision. Only income not covered by specific Articles (e.g. alimony, lottery income, gambling income, damages etc) can be charged as "Other income"
DCIT vs. Ford India Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12381 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied if the omission to offer income, and the wrong claim of deduction, was by oversight and the auditors did not point it out. Also, the failure of the AO to specify the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed is a fatal error
Wadhwa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12363 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 14A & Rule 8D: Disallowance under Rule 8D is not compulsory or mandatory. S. 14A(2) & Rule 8D cannot be invoked unless the AO examines the accounts and records the finding why the assessee's claim/ computation is not proper (entire law discussed and important judgements referred)
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12362 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 14A
-
S. 145: The average cost method of valuing inventories is an accepted method of valuation approved by the accounting standards issued by the ICAI. The AO is not entitled to disregard the method if the assessee has consistently followed the method
CIT vs. Uday M. Ghare
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12339 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 145
-
S. 9(1)(i): The capital gains arising on transfer by a foreign company of shares in another foreign company holding assets in India is liable to tax in India. The argument that the transfer is a mere re-organisation of assets within the group and that there is no “real income” is not acceptable. The argument that the India-UK DTAA should be given a “static” interpretation and that the retrospective amendment to s. 9 by the Finance Act 2012 should be ignored is also not acceptable. Where the DTAA provides that the income shall be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provision of the domestic law, the said domestic law has to be the amended law
Cairn UK Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12338 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 9(1)(i)
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot be levied. Argument of the Dept that Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not lay down this proposition is not correct
CIT vs. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12337 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 195-I: S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act distinguishes between 'premium' for acquiring the lease and 'rent' for enjoying user of the property. Payment towards 'premium' for the lease (even if paid annually) is a capital payment and is not subject to s. 194-I TDS. CBDT Circular No. 35/2016 dated 13.10.2016 referred
Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12329 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 105, 195
-
S. 271(1)(c): Entire law explained on whether levy of penalty is automatic if return filed by the assessee u/s 153A discloses higher income than in the return filed u/s 139(1) in the context of the law as it stood prior to, and after, the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c). Also, the law on levy of penalty on revised returns explained
Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12328 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - In the absence of any demonstrable loss of revenue, interference in exercise of power under Section 263 cannot be justified.
Gujarat Engineering Co. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Vadodara, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2), Vadodara
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12327 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54874&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Where the carbon receipts were not sold and/or transferred in favour of foreign companies in the year under consideration, the same cannot be included as receipt / income in the that year.
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12322 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68622&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Solely on the basis of the DVO’s report, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment, which was, as such, scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3).
AKSHAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1 (1)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12321 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68624&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.