- Income Tax - TMI - 207466 - HC Uttam Bir Singh Bedi Versus Union of India, & Others - (MADRAS HIGH COURT)
- Income Tax - TMI - 207465 - Tri Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-1, Versus Smt. Renu Mukherjee - (ITAT DELHI)
- Income Tax - TMI - 207464 - Tri Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Circle 32(1), Versus Shri Suren Goel - (ITAT DELHI)
- Income Tax - TMI - 207463 - Tri ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), Versus M/S ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (P) LTD., - (ITAT DELHI)
- Income Tax - TMI - 207462 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Swarna Bar Restaurant - (Andhra Pradesh High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207461 - Tri ITV Interactive Media (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT - (ITAT, Mumbai )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207460 - HC Dr. Attukal Radhakrishnan Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - (Kerala High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207459 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Continental Construction Ltd. - (Delhi High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207458 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus K. Streetlite Electric Corporation - (Punjab and Haryana High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207457 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Bhandari Silk Store - (Punjab and Haryana High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207456 - HC Chandrakantbhai Amratlal Thakkar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - (Gujarat High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207455 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Agriculture Market Committee - (Andhra Pradesh High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207454 - HC Pannalal Silk Mills P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Gift-tax - (Bombay High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207453 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Thomy P. Chakola (Decd.) - (Kerala High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207452 - HC Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax - (Punjab and Haryana High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207451 - HC All India J. D. Educational Society Versus Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) - (Delhi High Court )
- Income Tax - TMI - 207450 - HC Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Smt. C. Sabira - (Kerala High Court )
- Misc - TMI - 207443 - SC Chief Information Commr. and Another Versus State of Manipur and Another - (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Whether the post of Vice President is a promotional post to that of the Member of the ITAT or not. - Held That:- the President can delegate his powers and functions, for the sake of administration, in respect of the Benches either on Senior Vice President or on Vice Presidents of the Benches. The delegation of powers of the President could only be to either a Senior Vice President or to the Vice Presidents, but not to the Members. Therefore, even though the pay of the Vice President and the Members has been unified, it cannot, in any way be called that the posts of Vice President and Member have been merged. We have no hesitation to hold that since the post of Vice President carries higher responsibilities, with higher pay band, it is definitely a promotional post from that of the Member
Whether the President of the ITAT is having any authority or right to record the Annual Confidential Reports of the Members. If so, whether the first respondent/Government of India is having any right to review the ACRs of the Members. - Held That:- the President of the ITAT has no power or authority to write the ACRs of the Members. Further, being a judicial body, the ITAT should have a judicial autonomy and therefore, the first respondent cannot act like a Reviewing Authority.
Conduct of the petitioner (judicial member of ITAT) - held that:- Nobody has raised his little finger against the petitioner about his honesty and integrity, but all the allegations are pinpointed towards his arrogant behaviour and ignoring the judicial conventions. - All these would force us to direct the petitioner to mend his ways and conduct himself in a dignified manner and follow the established judicial conventions, so as to maintain the decorum on and off the dais.
AO has rejected the book result of the assessee and made disallowances - Held that: income of the assessee has to be estimated by adopting a suitable gross profit rate - appeal of the revenue is dismissed
Addition u/s 68 - Genuineness of the transaction - held that:- the loan of Rs. 20 lacs shown from Sh. Pritam Goel father of the assessee was only a journal entry in the books of M/s Lyra Industrials. Since there was no physical transfer of money from the account of Sh. Pritam Goel and only a journal entry was passed, the findings of the AO that transaction was sham ,is baseless, the ld. CIT(A) concluded. In the light of these findings of ld. CIT(A) especially when the Revenue have not placed before us any material so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee has shown the turnover from execution of contracts and no expense and interest attributable to the investments made by the appellant in the SPVs can be disallowed u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D because it cannot be termed as expense /interest incurred for earning exempted income. - CIT(A) is correct in holding that disallowance of a further sum Rs. 40,556/- calculated @2% of the dividend earned is sufficient.
Director’s Travelling expnses - Held that:- assessee has given sufficient details regarding the foreign travel expenditure. The disallowance in this regard cannot be sustained.
VAT not paid before the due date of filing of the return - as per order of the Excise and Taxation Officer cum Assessing Authority, there was refund to the assessee instead of VAT payable - no disallowance can be made.
Reopening - existence of partnership firm - registration of partneship firm u/s 184 / 185 - held that: - The settled law is that no registration can be granted to a firm under section 184(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the firm has been formed or is continuing in violation of the Excise Rules - the purpose for which sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act were amended by the Finance Act 18 of 1992, is mainly to avoid double taxation once on the firm and again on each of the partners; to do away with the distinction between a registered and an unregistered partnership ; and to, henceforth, tax the partnership firms as aseparate entity - a licence was granted only in favour of an individual and it is only he who is entitled to carry on business in the purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor and, as provided for in rule 39, no partnership firm can carry on such business save with the prior permission of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise - Decided in favor of revenue.
Reassessment - whether the reopening is bad in law. - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the assessee had set up its business during the impugned previous year and whether the expenses in question were to be allowed as revenue expenses. - Whether the assessee was entitled to claim for depreciation - Whether the AO was right in levying interest u/s 234B. - Held that:- It also came to a conclusion that there was no material for the AO to have reason to believe that the agreement to sell had been entered into in the year 1990-91. In the case on hand the AO had the necessary information in the audited accounts itself. Thus we agree with the learned DR and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the reopening and dismiss this ground of the assessee.
Revenue expenditure - Setting up of business or the commencement of the business - held that:- the assessee had set up business during the assessment year 2000-01, as otherwise, it would not have been possible for the assessee to telecast scrolling advertisement and earn revenues therefrom. Though we come to a conclusion that the business has been set up during this year, we are unable to specify the date on which the business can be said to have been set up for the reason that the required details have not been provided by the assessee nor examined by any of the revenue authorities. Thus we set aside the issue to the file of the AO to ascertain the exact date of set up of business and to treat the expenditure incurred thereafter as revenue expenditure.
Imposition and demand of "interest" under section 158BFA(1). - Held that:- The case that has been moulded in exhibit P6 petition filed before the second respondent and also in this writ petition is that, the direction/permission to realise "interest" as given in the "post script" is subject to the terms as specified in the order and since exhibit P4 order specified payment of tax alone within the specified time (lest it should attract interest u/s 245D(6A)), no such liability to satisfy "interest" u/s 158BFA is there. - Decided against Assessee.
Mandatory monetary limits for filing appeals. - How the tax effect is to be calculated and not with the minimum limit of the tax effect prescribed in the circular simpliciter. - Held that:- When it comes to the meaning that is to be assigned to the "tax effect" and the modified manner/formula is prescribed in O. M. dated May 15, 2008, such a circular on this aspect has to be treated as having prospective application more so when paragraph 11 thereof specifically so provides. It would be more so when the same is to the prejudice of the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
Notional Interest on security - part of annual letting value of the property. - Section 23 - Held that:- Where payment of the security deposit is to circumvent the real rent, the same shall fall within its ambit as income from house property. - Decided against Assessee.
Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. - Held that:- the assessee had disclosed amount at the time the search party was leaving the premises.It was further recorded that the time for filing ITR for AY 89-90 u/s 139(1) had not expired on the date of search and the assessee having disclosed the amount in the return filed for AY 1989-90 and paid all taxes, etc., could not be held to have concealed the particulars of income. decided in favour of Assessee.
Applicabilty of Section 158BD. - Held that:- In the present case, evidently no such satisfaction has been recorded by AO of the person with respect to whom the search was made, prior to handing over the documents. In the circumstances, the basic condition precedent for invoking section 158BD qua petitioner has not been satisfied. In search premises, in the absence of the basic requirement for invoking section 158BD being satisfied, respondent lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notice and as such the impugned notice u/s 158BD cannot be sustained. decided in favour of Assessee.
Taxability of income of agricultural market committees - Held that:- section 10(26AAB) inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f April 1, 2009, cannot be applied retrospectively w.e.f April 1, 2003, and that the new clause (26AAB) in section 10 is applicable w.e.f. from April 1, 2009, and shall accordingly apply for the AY 09-10 and for the subsequent assessment years. decided against upto AY 08-09 and in favour from AY 09-10.
Transfer of capital asset - Company was managed by 2 groups of shareholders. Some dispute is alleged to have cropped up between these 2 groups. & An arrangement has been made between and Shares transferred to each other. Whether these transfer was a 'Gift or family arrangement'. - There was consideration for the alleged transfer by the applicant. or not. - Held that:- Kantilal group relinquished and waived their right, title and interest in the property described in annex A & B and also consideration which the company was to receive out of the land transaction and in lieu thereof they got properties shown in annex C free from all liabilities on ownership basis. Nature of consideration is transfer of property shown in annex C in favour of the Kantilal group and in consideration thereof Kantilal group relinquished their rights over the properties shown in annex A and B. This consideration for the transaction in question can conveniently be spelt out from arbitration award of arbitrator. decided in favour of Assessee.
Sale of Agriculture Land and claim exemption u/s 54B in AY 91-92 but assessees did not purchase agricultural land within 2 yrs utilising the capital gain.Therefore, they became liable to pay tax on such CG u/s 54B(2)(i) for AY 93-94. This position was conceded by all assessees in the returns filed by each of them for AY 93-94. However, for payment of tax on CG for AY 93-94, the assessees computed CG on same transaction by applying amended provisions of section 48 which provides for deduction of the indexed COA & indexed COI in the computation of LTCG. This method of computation of CG came into force only from April 1, 1993 and onwards.
Held that:- recomputation of capital gain based on the amended provisions does not arise at all. Since computation or recomputation of capital gain was not required, and the capital gain deposited by the assessees was not utilised by them for purchase of agricultural land. decided against Assessee.
Capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - Deferment of revenue expenditure - Expenses incurred by the assessee on the replacement of membranes is a revenue expenditure or deferred revenue expenditure. - Held that:- The assessing authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure, having regard to the fact that the item in question, i.e., membrane had life of three years and eight years. The item in question is an equipment without which manufacturing is not possible. It is not an expenditure of the nature which is exhausted immediately. There is no single or rigid test for holding an expenditure to be revenue or capital. Generally enduring benefit of an expense, i.e., trade test or new asset test or functional test may be employed for determining the expenditure to be capital or revenue depending upon the nature of the business carried and the nature of expenditure incurred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of expenditure cannot be held to be of revenue nature. - Decided against Assessee.
Rejection grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) by writ of certiorari under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. - Held that:- From a perusal of the papers and in particular the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner-society has neither maintained proper books of account nor proper receipts of donations. Also salaries are shown to have been paid to the employees even though they had resigned. - it was obvious that the applicant's books of account were manipulated and its activities were not genuine and charitable.
Writ jurisdiction of high court - In the absence of any contravention of fundamental rights or violation of the principles of natural justice or gross unreasonableness or arbitrariness, this court would neither interfere nor substitute its own views in place of the decision taken by the DGIT(E). The writ jurisdiction is not intended to be an appellate jurisdiction. - decided against Assessee
Block assessment - Receipt entry in bill - error - whether amount mentioned as Rs. 45,19,238 is correct or Rs. 1,715 is correct - held that:- Findings have been entered into by the appellate authority and the Tribunal that the inclusion of more than Rs. 45 lakhs under a single receipt, is essentially an error. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer himself did not choose to include the same in the pre-assessment notice. We cannot overlook the argument of the respondent that in the course of the proceedings, the respondent was apparently able to convince the Assessing Officer of the nature of the error. - Decided in favor of assessee
Regarding allowance of Depreciation - Held that:- subject to the restrictions imposed in the Explanation to section 158BB, there is no embargo against assessee claiming the benefit of dep. It is entitled to in law, even in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B to do so. decided in favour of Assessee.
Estimation of Income on want of Books of Account. Held that:- There is no material or information with him relatable to such evidence also, in regard to the income from the broken period in question. What is done is estimation of income on basis of income ascertained for remaining period on basis of probability. decided in favour of Assessee.
Regarding unexplained cost of construction. - Held that:- There is no relevant matter as such which can be relied on by the appellant to justify finding about cost of construction being what was estimated. decided in favour of Assessee.
Right to information Act (RTI) - object and purpose of the Act and the evolving mosaic of jurisprudential thinking which virtually led to its enactment in 2005. - held that:- Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision.
Application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries - the High Court held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commissioner has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only. The Division Bench further came to hold that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with law. - Held that:- . The procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of statute. A right of appeal is a right of entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must be exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be furnished with the information. In that view of the matter this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. - Petitioner directed to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 9.2.2007 and 19.5.2007 within a period of four weeks
No comments:
Post a Comment