Archive for November, 2008

Sunil Sethi v. DCIT- Where there was documentary evidence on record to substantiate the explanation of the assessee that the amount was given for the business purposes of the company, the same could not be considered to be deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. Full Article

ACIT v. Prakash L. Shah - The exchange rate difference pertaining to the exports made in the earlier year shall be part of the export turnover of the year in which such export is made provided such sale proceeds of the eligible goods are realized in India within the period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such further period as allowed by the Competent Authority. Full Article

It was held that the order was passed in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against which the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In addition, a bare reading of this Court's earlier order shows that the impugned order is clearly erroneous. The impugned order is set aside. Full Article

CIT vs. Raval Tiles (Bombay High Court) Where the Tribunal did not pass an order on the appeal despite considerable delay and instead fixed the matter repeatedly for ‘clarifications’ and thereafter closed the matter for orders on the basis of written submissions and without hearing the assessee, HELD the procedure followed by the Tribunal was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Full Article

M/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI)] The words in relation to in s. 14A mean a dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure and the exempt income. To determine whether there is such a connection, one has to see the object with which the expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is incurred mainly to earn taxable income and the tax-free income is incidental, there is no such connection and s. 14A does not apply. The onus is o.. Full Article

CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings (Supreme Court) - Income Tax – Penalty – law permits the contracting parties to lawfully change their stipulations – What is material in the tax jurisprudence is the evasion of tax, not the beneficial lawful adjustment therefor . In the commercial world, the parties are always free to vary the terms of contract and, therefore, the assessee and the vendee had no legal impediment in modifying the terms of their contract. Merely because by Re.. Full Article