-
ITAT - The assessee being entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, no disallowance on account of contribution to unapproved pension and gratuity funds can be made and the addition made on account of the same is, therefore, directed to be deleted.
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12776 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54793&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Allowed - AO not justified in rejecting assessee’s stay application on the ground assessee was required to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand for considering his stay application on merits in view of CBDT instruction dated February 29, 2016.
Jagdish Gandabhai Shah vs. Pr. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12774 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
HC - AO is required to take appropriate decision on the stay application as per the modified Office Memorandum F. No. 404/72/93- ITCC issued by CBDT.
Jagdish Gandabhai Shah Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12772 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69041&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 40(a)(ia): S. 194C read with s. 200 are mandatory provisions. The disallowance stipulated in s. 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C is one of the consequences for the default. Accordingly, though there is a difference between “paid” and “payable”, s. 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid. The contrary interpretation that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to cases where amounts are “payable” will result in defaulters going scot free
Palam Gas Service vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12765 (SC) · Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C
-
NOC from Advocate to appoint new advocate: A litigant has the absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice and to terminate his services any time and for whatever reason. There is no concept of an "irrevocable vakalatnama". A party has the absolute freedom to change his advocate. Fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate. The Registry cannot insist on a NOC from the old advocate and refuse to take the new vakalatnama on record
Karnataka Power Transmission Corp Ltd vs. M. Rajashekar
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12764 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
SC - Provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act were applicable not only to the amount which were shown as outstanding on the closing of the relevant previous year, but to the entire expenditure which became liable for payment at any point of time during the year under consideration and which was also paid before the closing of the year as rightly held by the authorities below.
Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12757 (SC) · Section 40(a) (ia)
-
HC - Once an arbitral award was made by the Court, mere stay of the decree by higher authorities would not relieve assessee of its obligation to pay interest in terms thereof. Liability to pay interest under arbitral award commenced in the year in which such decree was passed.
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12756 (HC-DELHI)
-
SC - The issue on allowability of preliminary expenses as revenue expenditure was debatable in view of divergent HC views but issue decided by jurisdictional HC is non-debatable to make 143(1)(a) adjustment.
DCIT. Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12740 (SC) · Section. 143(1)(a)
-
S. 143(1)(a): Even though there was a raging controversy amongst the High Courts on whether expenditure for raising capital is capital or revenue in nature, the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the assessee and any view contrary thereto is a "prima facie" mistake that requires adjustment
CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12739 (SC) · Section 143(1)(a)
-
Bogus share capital: Mere fact that payment was received by cheque or that the applicants were companies borne on the file of the Registrar of Companies does not prove that the transaction was genuine. Even under the unamended s. 68, the onus is on the assessee prove the creditworthiness of the subscribers. Argument that the amendment to s. 68 is not retrospective is not required to be considered
Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12738 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 68
-
Service of notice by Whatsapp: The purpose of service is put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is irrelevant. The rules and procedure are not so ancient or rigid that only antiquated methods of service through a bailiff or by beat of drum is acceptable. E-Mail & Whatsapp are not formally approved but if service is shown to be effected and is acknowledged it cannot be said that the Defendants had ‘no notice’. Defendants who avoid and evade service by regular modes cannot be permitted to take advantage of that evasion
Kross Television India Pvt Ltd vs. Vikhyat Chitra Production
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12737 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 220(6): CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 on stay of demand by the AO does not require the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand. As per the Instruction, if the AO requires the assessee to pay less, or more, than 15% of the demand, the sanction of the Pr. CIT is required. If the AO demands 15% to be paid, the assessee is entitled to approach the Pr CIT for review of the AO's decision
Jagdish Gandabhai Shah vs. Pr CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12736 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 220(6)
-
Strictures passed regarding the "standard excuses" of the department for delay in filing appeals, namely, budgetary constraints, lack of infrastructure to make soft copies, change of standing counsel etc
Pr CIT vs. Diana Builders & Contractors Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12735 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 2(15)/12AA: The activities of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are prima facie in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration and are hit by the proviso to s. 2(15). If the receipts from these activities are in excess of the minimum prescribed threshold limit, the DIT is required to conduct detailed enquiry and examination as to the nexus between the activities and trade, commerce or business
MIG Cricket Club vs. DIT (E)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12734 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(15), 12AA
-
S. 68/ 2(14): "On Money" received by an assessee for sale of agricultural land has to be treated as "agricultural income" and exempted from tax if the facts show that the assessee has no other source for the receipt
ITO vs. Abraham Varghese Charuvil
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12733 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Sections 68, 2(14)
-
Article 5 India-UK DTAA: Entire law on what constitutes a "permanent establishment" in the context of the 'Formula One Grand Prix of India' event explained after extensive reference to case laws, OECD Model Convention and commentary by Philip Baker, Klaus Vogel and other experts
Formula One World Championship Limited vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12691 (SC)
-
S. 263: There is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If the AO has called for the necessary details and the assessee has furnished the same, the fact that the AO is silent in the assessment order does not mean that he has not applied his mind so as to justify exercise of revisional powers by the CIT u/s 263
Small Wonder Industries vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12685 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
S. 279: As there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left open
Vikram Singh vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12684 (HC-DELHI) · Section 279
-
Bogus purchases: Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus
M/s Beauty Tax vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12683 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain
CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12682 (SC) · Sections 45, 50(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.