-
ITAT - Income, which may or may not arise on incurring expenditure, and again with no certainty as to its quantum, cannot by itself form the basis of either incurring or allocation of expenditure u/s 14A (1).
Fali S. Nariman. Vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5162 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A (1)
-
HC - View in Alcatel Lucent that assessee must pay interest for short-fall of advance-tax if it induced payee not to deduct TDS cannot be followed. View in Jacobs has to be followed because obligation of payer to deduct TDS is absolute & not dependent on assertion of payee.
DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5161 (HC-DELHI) · Section 234B
-
ITAT - Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income
Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5160 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
ITAT - Once the assessee demonstrates that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house, even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from availing benefit under section 54F
S. Uma Devi vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5159 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 54F
-
HC - Entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt even though the source is the public who visit the cinema hall after it becomes operational
CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5158 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - If there are number of comparable uncontrolled transactions, then the arithmetic mean of such prices charged or paid should be identified. Neither the Revenue can pick a single highest price from a number of comparable uncontrolled transactions, nor the assessee can argue for taking the lowest of such comparable uncontrolled transactions
ITW India Limited vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5157 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 92C
-
ITAT - Reimbursement of the expenditure does not generate any income in the hands of the recipient and consequently there was no requirement of deduction of TDS and consequently the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked
AT & S India Pvt. Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5156 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
ITAT - In a situation in which an activity is not undertaken with a profit motive or on sound and recognized business principles, such an activity cannot be considered to be a business activity. Receiving fees simplicitor is not reason enough to hold that the activity is not a charitable activity.
Army Welfare Placement Organization vs. DIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5155 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 2(15)
-
HC - ‘Served from India’ brand can’t be construed to include only brands of Indian Companies, which are recognized as IndianIndian subsidiaries of foreign companies can claim SFIS benefit
Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5154 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - If the assessee has treated the scientific research expenditure as capital expenditure and claimed deduction under section 35(l)(iv) it shall have the same effect as unabsorbed depreciation, S.79 not applicable.
DCIT. vs. Tejas Networks Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5153 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 79
-
ITAT - A mere statement that trade advances were made for purposes of business is not sufficient to establish business purpose. In S.A. Builders's case transaction was between a holding company and a subsidiary company and thus business interest was evident.
ACIT vs Esveeaar Distillers Pvt Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5152 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - The two sections, i.e., s. 271(l)(c) and s. 271AAA, are not only worded differently, with thus different concomitant scopes, are rather mandated to operate exclusively. Section 271AAA requires substantiation of the manner in which the undisclosed income is derived by assessee as per statement recorded u/s 132(4), however in case of section 271(l)(c) there is no such requirement of substantiation.
ACIT vs Prakash Steelage Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5151 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 271AAA, 271(l)(c)
-
Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5150 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Veejmandal’s Workers Federation Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
Veejmandal’s Workers Federation Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), Kudal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5149 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - When there is no concealment of income qua the present assessment proceedings, there is no question of imposition of concealment penalty qua this assessment proceedings
Arvind Gupta vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5148 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Reimbursement of medical expense is allowable expenses and cannot be said to be perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act
Mr. Rajkamal R. Bajaj V/s ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5147 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 17(2)
-
ITAT - Income from Portfolio Management Schemes, whether to be assessed as Capital gains or business income should be decided as per objectives of the Scheme. ITAT lays down criteria to determine income characterization
ACIT vs Satish Kumar Gupta
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5146 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Sec 133(6) as amended by Finance Act, 1995 whereby words "enquiry or" were added to enhance power of Revenue to call information to even those cases where no proceedings were pending is constitutional valid. Even assuming that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, such fundamental right must be subject to restriction
Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd and others vs. UOI and others
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5145 (HC-KERALA) · Section. 133(6)
-
HC - Since issue was settled by earlier High Court order and no ground for pressing appeal against settled issue was given in "appeal memo", therefore, appeal file by the revenue is dismissed. High Court imposed cost personally on CIT in order to discourage casual appeals
CIT vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5144 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Stock Option Transfer Proceeds received by assessee having residential status of not ordinarily resident are not taxable, as the same is not accruing / arising in India
Anil Bhansali vs ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5143 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.