-
ITAT - Loss allowed on the basis of ‘mark to market’ open derivative contracts. Gain taxable on the balance (brought forward) contracts in its' entirety on settlement.
Mili Consultants & Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10608 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Income generated from letting out of the auditorium for conducting coaching classes is to be considered as income generated from the property held under the trust.
Association of Surgeons of India vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10607 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 11
-
SC - Subsidy by way of refund of excise duty and interest for setting up new industrial undertaking is a capital receipt.
CIT. vs. Shree Balaji Alloys
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10606 (SC)
-
Law laid down by the Tribunal in (i) Central Bank of India v/s. DCIT 42 SOT 450 that under Art 26(3) of India-USA DTAA payments to Non-Residents are equated with payments to Residents & so s. 40(a)(i) disallowance is not valid and (ii) in DCIT v/s. Bank of Baharain & Kuwait 132 TTJ (Mum) 505 that loss arising from unmatured foreign exchange contracts is not a notional loss but is allowable as a definite liability is final as Dept has not challenged these verdicts and the issue cannot be raised in case of other assessees
DIT vs. Citibank N. A.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10605 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
Mesne profits (amount received from a person in wrongful possession of property) is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax either as income or as "book profits" u/s 115JB. As the department has implicitly accepted Narang Overseas vs. ACIT 100 ITD (Mum) (SB), it cannot file an appeal on the issue in the case of other assessees
CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10604 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68: The assessee is bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitted to cross examine the deponents. The denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment order and renders it vulnerable
H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10577 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
Subsidy by way of refund of excise duty and interest for setting up a new industrial undertaking is a capital receipt & not taxable as income. Alternatively, such receipts are "derived" from the industrial undertaking and are deductible u/s 80-IB
CIT vs. Shree Balaji Alloys
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10576 (SC) · Section 80-IB
-
Entire law on assessment of shipping companies under the "Tonnage Tax" Scheme in Chapter XIIG of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the context of "slot charters" explained
CIT vs. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10573 (SC)
-
Severe strictures passed at the attitude of the Government in creating “hurdles and obstacles in the smooth working and functioning of all the tribunals and courts” and the fact that the “State has yet to adopt a culture of respect and regard for the judiciary”. Directions given that issue of allotment of residential quarters to Tribunal Members should not be kept a “closely guarded secret” but made public
Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association vs. The State of Maharashtra
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10572 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities. American Express vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) affirmed, Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC) distinguished
CIT vs. CitiBank N.A.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10571 (SC)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): When there are conflicting judgements of non-jurisdiction High Courts, the Tribunal is not permitted to choose based on its perception of what the correct law is because it will amount to sitting in judgement over the High Courts’ views. Instead, it has to follow the view which is in favour of the assessee even if it believes that this view is not the correct law. Second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) inserted by FA 2013 should be treated as retrospectively applicable from 1st April 2005
R K P Company vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10540 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 37(1): Expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), though voluntary, is allowable as business expenditure. Explanation 2 to s. 37(1) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is not retrospective. It applies only to CSR expenditure referred to in s. 135 of the Companies Act and not to voluntary CSR expenditure
ACIT vs. Jindal Power Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10539 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · Section 37(1)
-
ITAT - TPO was justified in segregating the international transactions of payment of royalty and FTS from other international transactions as these are not linked with import of raw material etc. from its AE.
Gruner India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-10 (2) , New Delhi
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10479 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49902&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Business loss cannot be set off against the income assessed u/s 68, where the same is not falling under any of the five heads of income
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Haridwar Versus M/s. Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10478 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49903&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since stamp duty is in the nature of a compulsory levy under the Bombay Stamp Act, whole expenditure allowed as revenue expenditure
M/s. PRITHVI ASSOCIATES Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10477 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65530&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Lease equalization/terminal charge not to be added while calculating the book profit for the purposes of MAT.
Principal CIT. vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10476 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
S. 148 notice issued to, and reassessment order passed on, a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction. A writ petition can be entertained despite the presence of alternate remedy
Jitendra Chandralal Navlani vs. UOI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10475 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
S. 263: In challenging the validity of a s. 263 revision order, the validity of the underlying s. 143(3) assessment order which is sought to be revised can be examined even if the said assessment order has not been challenged and has become final. If the assessment order is passed on a non-existent entity, the revision order is void
Westlife Development Ltd vs. Pr. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10474 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
S. 30/ 37(1): Expenditure on repairs of rented premises, even if huge and accumulated, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Fact that CIT(A) admitted additional evidence is no justification for seeking a set aside to the AO if the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO: Savarana Spinning mills Limited 293 ITR 201 (SC) distinguished
DCIT vs. Ikea Trading (India) P Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10473 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 30, 37(1)
-
ITAT - Initiation of two parallel proceedings (sec. 154 and 147) on a similar subject matter cannot sustain.
Sushil Kumar Jain vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10472 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.