<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TaxGuru &#187; Income Tax Case Laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://taxguru.in/category/income-tax-case-laws/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://taxguru.in</link>
	<description>Complete Tax Solution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 17:57:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Charity should not become a façade to promote business interest or secure advantage of persons mentioned in section 13(3)</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charity-faade-promote-business-interest-secure-advantage-persons-mentioned-section-133.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charity-faade-promote-business-interest-secure-advantage-persons-mentioned-section-133.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 17:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is prohibited and barred is application of income or use of the property of the institution directly or indirectly for benefit of a person mentioned in Section 13(3) i.e. he is paid beyond what is reasonable, adequate, commensurate and justified for the services rendered or goods supplied. The said person should not profit at the expense of the trust/institution. Charity should not become the primary or important source of business profits and a façade to promote business interest or secure advantage, for persons mentioned in Section 13(3) in the name of charity. The word "benefit" need not be restricted to direct material benefit, but is of wide significance comprehending whatever would be beneficial in any respect, materially or otherwise. Benefit can be pecuniary or non pecuniary. This would be the correct legislative intent.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charity-faade-promote-business-interest-secure-advantage-persons-mentioned-section-133.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ordinary profits’ referred to in Section 80IA is different from &#8216;ALP’</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ordinary-profits-referred-section-80ia-alp.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ordinary-profits-referred-section-80ia-alp.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tribunal placed reliance on the Chennai Tribunal ruling in the case of Tweezerman (India) Private Limited v. Addl. CIT, [2010] 4 ITR (Trib.) 130 (Chennai) which ruled that provisions of Section 80-IA(10) of the Act do not give an arbitrary power to the AO to determine the profits of the taxpayer. It is incumbent on the AO to show how ordinary profits were computed based on similar comparable case.  The phrase ‘more than ordinary profits’ referred in Section 80-IA(10) of the Act is different from ‘ALP’.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ordinary-profits-referred-section-80ia-alp.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section 54F benefit remains intact even if Assessee transfer New house acquired to claim S. 54F to acquire another house</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-54f-benefit-remains-intact-assessee-transfer-house-acquired-claim-54f-acquire-house.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-54f-benefit-remains-intact-assessee-transfer-house-acquired-claim-54f-acquire-house.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 54F]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assessee has invested in purchase of new residential house at Rs. 70,80,620/- within the period of two years in which the transfer took place and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54F(1) of the Act in respect of the said investment out of this deemed long term capital gains. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in not granting exemption u/s 54F with reference to this investment made by the assessee in computing long term capital gains of the year under consideration.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-54f-benefit-remains-intact-assessee-transfer-house-acquired-claim-54f-acquire-house.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mere Sale &amp; Lease Back cannot lead to conclusion that transaction is sham</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/mere-sale-lease-lead-conclusion-transaction-sham.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/mere-sale-lease-lead-conclusion-transaction-sham.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It cannot be said that all tax planning is illegal/ illegitimate/impermissible. Applying the rationale of this decision to the case on hand, in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been purchased had been leased out to the vendor or that vendor had undertaken to pay the hire charges on behalf of the assessee to the hire purchase company, per se, cannot lead to a conclusion that the transaction is a sham one. In the circumstances, even invoking the decision in McDowell case, we do not find any ground to accept the plea of the Revenue that the claim of the assessee has to be rejected as a sham one.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/mere-sale-lease-lead-conclusion-transaction-sham.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Even in a case where no expenditure is incurred, AO has to apply Rule 8D</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/case-expenditure-incurred-ao-apply-rule-8d.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/case-expenditure-incurred-ao-apply-rule-8d.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 14a]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The taxpayer contended that the AO may invoke provisions of the Section 14A of the Act only after conducting necessary enquiries into the factual aspects. However, the Chennai Tribunal held that even in a case where the taxpayer claims that no expenditure was incurred in relation with the exempt income, the statute had provided for a presumptive expenditure which has to be disallowed by force of the statute. It means that even in a case where no expenditure is stated to have been incurred, the AO had to apply Rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 14A of the Act substitutes the requirement of factual evidence and the question of enquiry does not arise.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/case-expenditure-incurred-ao-apply-rule-8d.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S. 14A In case net interest is income, no part of interest paid can be disallowed for earning tax free dividend</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/14a-case-net-interest-income-part-interest-paid-disallowed-earning-tax-free-dividend.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/14a-case-net-interest-income-part-interest-paid-disallowed-earning-tax-free-dividend.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 14a]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The taxpayer adjusted the interest expenditure against the interest income earned. After such adjustment no interest expenditure remained to be disallowed. The taxpayer offered expenditure other than interest of Rs.  111,521 for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act on the estimated basis. The Kolkata Tribunal held that there was no interest expenditure remaining after adjusting the interest credited to the Profit and Loss Account. Therefore, no part of interest paid can be disallowed for earning tax free dividend. Further, expenditure other than interest had been offered for disallowance by the taxpayer under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, no further disallowance shall be made.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/14a-case-net-interest-income-part-interest-paid-disallowed-earning-tax-free-dividend.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interest free loan is subject to arm’s length test irrespective of commercial expediency</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-free-loan-subject-arms-length-test-irrespective-commercial-expediency.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-free-loan-subject-arms-length-test-irrespective-commercial-expediency.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 02:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s proposition that only real income should be taxed and noted that these arguments could not be accepted in the context of Chapter X - Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax, of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Perot System TSI (India) Limited. The Tribunal observed that RBI's approval was not sufficient from an Indian transfer pricing perspective as the character and substance of the transaction needs to be judged in order to determine whether the transaction has been done at arm’s length.  The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s contention that the loans granted were commercially expedient and economic circumstances did not warrant the charging of interest. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-free-loan-subject-arms-length-test-irrespective-commercial-expediency.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ALP cannot be applied to determine &#8216;ordinary profits&#8217; for computing S.10A deduction</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/alp-applied-determine-ordinary-profits-computing-s10a-deduction.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/alp-applied-determine-ordinary-profits-computing-s10a-deduction.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 02:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The provisions of Transfer Pricing regulations contained in Section 92 belong to a separate code enacted for computing income from international transactions having regard to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) so as to confirm that there is no tax avoidance by the taxpayer. Operation of Transfer Pricing provisions ends when the Transfer Pricing Officer passes an order holding that the operating profit of the taxpayer is compatible with ALP norms and no adjustment is necessary.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/alp-applied-determine-ordinary-profits-computing-s10a-deduction.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payments for purchase of Software not Royalty &#8211; ITAT Mumbai</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-for-purchase-of-software-not-royalty-itat-mumbai.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-for-purchase-of-software-not-royalty-itat-mumbai.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 02:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AAR in the case of Dassault (supra) was a case of sale of shrink wrap software and the AAR has held that reproduction and adaptation envisaged by section 14(a)(i) and (vi) can contextually mean only reproduction and adaptation for the purpose of commercial exploitation. The ruling of the AAR in the case of Dassault (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Ericsson AB,New Delhi (supra). It can therefore be said that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that consideration paid merely for right to use cannot be held to be royalty. This ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court would also apply when shrink wrap software is sold.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-for-purchase-of-software-not-royalty-itat-mumbai.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S. 80-IB(10) deduction available to taxpayer who is not merely a land owner but carries on activities along with promoter for developing &amp; building approved housing project</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/80ib10-deduction-taxpayer-land-owner-carries-activities-promoter-developing-building-approved-housing-project.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/80ib10-deduction-taxpayer-land-owner-carries-activities-promoter-developing-building-approved-housing-project.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 01:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT  v. Shravanee Constructions (Karnataka High Court) Section 80-IB(10) of the Act is applicable not for merely building housing project but for developing and building housing project.  In terms of the agreement, the taxpayer not only undertook the development activities on the land in question, but in fact the taxpayer entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land, paid the entire consideration. However, it did not execute a registered sale deed in its name. Thus, the Assessee contributed the land.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/80ib10-deduction-taxpayer-land-owner-carries-activities-promoter-developing-building-approved-housing-project.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Severance benefits (including Leave Encashment) received outside India from former employer for services rendered outside India  not taxable in the hands of an individual who is a Not Ordinary Resident</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/severance-benefits-including-leave-encashment-received-india-employer-services-rendered-india-taxable-hands-individual-ordinary-resident.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/severance-benefits-including-leave-encashment-received-india-employer-services-rendered-india-taxable-hands-individual-ordinary-resident.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 01:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Receipt of the impugned amount was on account of part services rendered by the assessee to his previous foreign employer outside India. Under section  5 of the I.T. Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all incomes from whatever source derived, which is received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year; or accrues or arises to him outside India during such year.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/severance-benefits-including-leave-encashment-received-india-employer-services-rendered-india-taxable-hands-individual-ordinary-resident.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charitable trust is not invalid merely because settlor or Poor Relative of settlor is one of the beneficiary</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charitable-trust-invalid-settlor-poor-relative-settlor-beneficiary.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charitable-trust-invalid-settlor-poor-relative-settlor-beneficiary.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 07:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 12a]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A charitable trust is not invalid merely because that settlor is one of the beneficiaries as long as he is not the sole beneficiary. If settlor is the sole beneficiary, then the trust would be invalid on account of non-divesting of party. Where dominant object of the trust was to help the poor Parsis and to donate to educational institutions, registration u/s 12A was not deniable merely because preference was to be given to poor relatives of the settlor so long as it did not make the poor relatives of the settlor the only beneficiaries.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/charitable-trust-invalid-settlor-poor-relative-settlor-beneficiary.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S.68 If assessee fails to prove identity &amp; credit worthiness of creditor than AO can treat the loan as income</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/s68-assessee-fails-prove-identity-credit-worthiness-creditor-ao-treat-loan-income.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/s68-assessee-fails-prove-identity-credit-worthiness-creditor-ao-treat-loan-income.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 05:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 68]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.14,60,052/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal. There is no dispute that the said amount had been shown as loan in books of account of the assessee. Assessee could not produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal who lived in UK and genuineness of transaction. Subsequently before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the amount had been wrongly entered in books and the same related to transaction of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal with the sister concern M/s. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/s68-assessee-fails-prove-identity-credit-worthiness-creditor-ao-treat-loan-income.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agent not liable for tax on income earned on behalf of principal but only for charges received for his service</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agent-liable-tax-income-earned-behalf-principal-charges-received-service.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agent-liable-tax-income-earned-behalf-principal-charges-received-service.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 04:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assessee is an agent of Government of Maharashtra and also considering the fact that Hon’ble High Court granted stay to the assessee for the recovery of the demand when the appeal was pending before ld CIT(A), we hold that the assessee has a prima facie case for grant of stay for recovery of the dues pending disposal of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we grant stay for recovery of the demand for A.Y. 2006-07 for a period of 6 months or till disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agent-liable-tax-income-earned-behalf-principal-charges-received-service.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ITAT Asks CBDT to take notice of Mistakes in Central processing of Returns</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-asks-cbdt-notice-mistakes-central-processing-returns.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-asks-cbdt-notice-mistakes-central-processing-returns.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 16:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[However, we would like to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of CBDT that after the procedure of Central processing of returns, many issues have come before various forums where unnecessary demands have been raised due to non-grant of TDS, wrong computation of income, adjustment of the previous year demand which have already been deleted by the jurisdictional assessing officer. Therefore, we would like to urge the CBDT to take up this matter urgently and establish proper coordination between the assessing authority and Central Processing Authority so that these problems are immediately solved and unnecessary litigation can be avoided. Copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh and Chairman of CBDT for necessary action. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-asks-cbdt-notice-mistakes-central-processing-returns.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whether assessee could book its expenses on accrual basis &amp; receipts on actual receipt basis</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-book-expenses-accrual-basis-receipts-actual-receipt-basis.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-book-expenses-accrual-basis-receipts-actual-receipt-basis.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 16:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The assessee has followed mercantile system of accountancy in regard to the expenditure incurred during that year and results were declared on actual receipt and this method is constantly followed by the assessee since last so many years, therefore, addition of the amount received in the next year in the month of April should not have been added in the previous year merely on the basis of bills issued and expenditure shown in the assessment year.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-book-expenses-accrual-basis-receipts-actual-receipt-basis.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When addition itself Set aside, there cannot be penalty for concealment of income</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-set-penalty-concealment-income.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-set-penalty-concealment-income.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT in an appeal. The ITAT has decided the said appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, at present, when the addition itself has been set aside, there cannot be any case for levy of penalty for concealment of income. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-set-penalty-concealment-income.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Onus on Assessee to Prove bank A/c do not belong to Assessee or is Bogus</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/onus-assessee-prove-bank-ac-belong-assessee-bogus.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/onus-assessee-prove-bank-ac-belong-assessee-bogus.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Authorities have put the onus on the assessee to prove that the said bank account is bogus. In this regard, assessee has categorically stated that the said account was not opened by the assessee. The bank has not replied to the query of the Assessing Officer. So adverse inference on the assessee cannot be made in this regard. In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/onus-assessee-prove-bank-ac-belong-assessee-bogus.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S. 292BB &#8211; Assessment can not be annulled If no objection regarding valid service of notice was taken before completion of assessment</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/292bb-assessment-annulled-objection-valid-service-notice-completion-assessment.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/292bb-assessment-annulled-objection-valid-service-notice-completion-assessment.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 02:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hon’ble Punjab &#038; Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. in ITA No.292 of 2008, dated 3.05.2011 has held that in a case where no objection regarding valid service was taken before the completion of assessment, provisions of sec. 292BB will be applicable to all pending assessments as on 1.04.2008. Since the provisions of sec. 292BB(1) are applicable for Assessment Year in question as the proceedings were pending as on that date and the assessee had not raised any objection during the course of assessment proceedings and had participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be annulled on the ground that valid notice u/s 143(2) was not served on the assessee. Accordingly in our considered opinion as held by the Hon’ble Punjab &#038; Haryana High Court in the case of Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. (supra), assessment cannot be annulled.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/292bb-assessment-annulled-objection-valid-service-notice-completion-assessment.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A.O. can not make the additions deleted by Appellate Authorities while Passing order U/s.154</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-additions-deleted-appellate-authorities-passing-order-us154.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-additions-deleted-appellate-authorities-passing-order-us154.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With respect to assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 30.11.2010, addition of Rs.1,32,52040/- was made, against which the assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted such addition vide order dated 31.5.2011 against which the department filed appeal and Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) vide order dated 25.10.2011 in I.T.A No.3641/Del.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. Meanwhile, Assessing Officer passed another order u/s 154/143(3) on 3.2.2011 making the same addition, against which assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition while following his earlier order dated 31.5.2011.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-additions-deleted-appellate-authorities-passing-order-us154.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If a pure question of law arises for which facts are on record of the authorities below, the question should be allowed to be raised if it is necessary to assess correct tax liability</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/pure-question-law-arises-facts-record-authorities-question-allowed-raised-assess-correct-tax-liability.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/pure-question-law-arises-facts-record-authorities-question-allowed-raised-assess-correct-tax-liability.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 05:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of JB Greaves (supra), which is the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it has been held that the subject - matter of appeal before the Tribunal would be the grounds raised by the appellant before it. Rule 11 provides that the appellant shall not except by the leave of Tribunal, be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/pure-question-law-arises-facts-record-authorities-question-allowed-raised-assess-correct-tax-liability.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exercise of power U/s.131(1A) is contemplated in a situation anterior to exercise of power U/s. 132</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-us1311a-contemplated-situation-anterior-exercise-power-132.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-us1311a-contemplated-situation-anterior-exercise-power-132.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 02:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the present case the Director of Investigation had reliable and sufficient information to proceed with the authorisation for search. No malafides have been attributed or pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioners have been subjected to block assessment on the basis of the recoveries made during search, in which they are pursuing the remedies. The appeal filed by the department has been allowed by ITA, and the matter in remand is pending consideration in assessment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-us1311a-contemplated-situation-anterior-exercise-power-132.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Share application money received – Genuineness merely only on the basis of bank Entries</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/share-application-money-received-genuineness-decided-basis-bank-entries.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/share-application-money-received-genuineness-decided-basis-bank-entries.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 05:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the present case, however, the assessee is a private limited company. The share application money was received through private placement. The Assessing Officer has brought on record evidence in the shape of Income tax returns and bank statements of the share applicants to show that these companies had very meager income or were running in losses. It has also been brought on record that in most of the cases, the amounts were deposited in the account either on the same day or a day before the issue of cheques to the assessee. All the share applicants had address in Delhi.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/share-application-money-received-genuineness-decided-basis-bank-entries.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on a debatable issue</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-2711c-imposed-debatable-issue.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-2711c-imposed-debatable-issue.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 05:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 271(1)(c)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is observed that the assessee capitalized the expenses in relation to Cafeteria project as capital work in progress in earlier year. Such project did not take off and eventually the assessee claimed it as a business loss in the current year. It is clearly borne out from records that the assessee claimed deduction by disclosing complete particulars in this regard. Simply because the assessee did not succeed in the first appeal on this issue, it does not mean that penalty will be automatic.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-2711c-imposed-debatable-issue.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expense Allowable if TDS Paid TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1)</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expense-allowable-tds-paid-tds-paid-due-date-filing-return-1391.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expense-allowable-tds-paid-tds-paid-due-date-filing-return-1391.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 04:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Issue is decided by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expense-allowable-tds-paid-tds-paid-due-date-filing-return-1391.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benefits granted to a charitable institution cannot be extended to its substantially amended objects</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/benefits-granted-charitable-institution-extended-substantially-amended-objects.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/benefits-granted-charitable-institution-extended-substantially-amended-objects.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 18:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 12a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 12AA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/benefits-granted-charitable-institution-extended-substantially-amended-objects.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taxability of income in hands of a non-resident not a relevant consideration for treating a resident to be an agent of a non-resident</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-hands-nonresident-relevant-consideration-treating-resident-agent-nonresident.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-hands-nonresident-relevant-consideration-treating-resident-agent-nonresident.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 07:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The provisions of section 163 of the Act do not require that, the liability of the non-resident to pay tax should be established before initiating proceedings under section 163 of the Act on a person to treat it as the agent or representative assessee of the non-resident.  The purpose of section 163 of the Act was to enable revenue authorities to proceed and impose a vicarious liability on a person regarded as agent, in an event when income was found to be taxable in the hands of the non-resident. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-hands-nonresident-relevant-consideration-treating-resident-agent-nonresident.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A.O can not estimate Higher G.P. ratio without giving specific Reasons</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-estimate-higher-gp-ratio-giving-specific-reasons.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-estimate-higher-gp-ratio-giving-specific-reasons.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 07:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case has not rejected the books results of the assessee, nor has given any specific reasoning why the GP rate adopted by the assessee should be disturbed. Assessee has shown GP rate 24.54%. 20.53% GP was accepted by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in earlier years. Thus, nothing has been brought on record to prove lacunae in the assessee’s books of accounts, neither any reason has been stated why the GP rate should be disturbed and GP should be estimated at 30%. We find that there is no cogent basis in the Assessing Officer’s decision in making the addition in this case. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a right view in the matter which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/ao-estimate-higher-gp-ratio-giving-specific-reasons.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If assessee surrenders an amount with a condition that no penal action shall be taken, to avoid further litigation and to buy peace, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be imposed</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-surrenders-amount-condition-penal-action-avoid-litigation-buy-peace-penalty-2711c-imposed.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-surrenders-amount-condition-penal-action-avoid-litigation-buy-peace-penalty-2711c-imposed.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 00:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 271(1)(c)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is found that surrender was made subject to no penalty vide letter of the assessee filed before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which clearly indicate that surrender was being made with a condition that no penal action will be made and to avoid further litigation and to buy peace and jurisdictional High Court decisions in the case of CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works [2000] 246 ITR 216/[2002] 120 Taxman 319 (All.) and CIT v. Mansa Ram &#038; Sons [1977] 106 ITR 307 (All.) were in favour of the assessee and Commissioner (Appeals) has followed these decisions while deleting the impugned penalty. Moreover, department has not been able to bring on record any contrary superior Courts decisions in this regard. Therefore, there is no valid ground to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld and appeal of the department is dismissed being devoid of any merit.  As a result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-surrenders-amount-condition-penal-action-avoid-litigation-buy-peace-penalty-2711c-imposed.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Compensation for under utilisation of production capacity not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/compensation-utilisation-production-capacity-eligible-deduction-80ic.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/compensation-utilisation-production-capacity-eligible-deduction-80ic.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 16:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pine Packaging Private Ltd V/s. CIT (Delhi HC) Compensation received from customer for under utilisation of taxpayer’s capacity was not profit derived from manufacture/production and was therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income-tax Act,1961]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/compensation-utilisation-production-capacity-eligible-deduction-80ic.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DTAA cannot create any fresh tax liability which is not provided under Income Tax Act</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/dtaa-create-fresh-tax-liability-income-tax-act.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/dtaa-create-fresh-tax-liability-income-tax-act.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 16:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case, M/s Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd , a tax resident of UK, was denied the benefit of setting off of the business loss from sale of shares against the income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on the ground that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment  in India as per Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement . The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal observed that the assessee chose to be ruled by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961  and not DTAA. Thus, the AO was not justified in directing that the business loss should be considered as per provisions of DTAA and therefore taxing the income from other sources without allowing its set off against the business loss. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/dtaa-create-fresh-tax-liability-income-tax-act.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No capital gains tax on share transfer under family arrangement</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/capital-gains-tax-share-transfer-family-arrangement.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/capital-gains-tax-share-transfer-family-arrangement.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 16:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[word 'transfer' does not include partition or family set­tlement. HC observed that  it is well settled that a partition is not a transfer. What is recorded in a family settlement is nothing but a partition. Every mem­ber has an anterior title to the property which is the subject matter of a transac­tion, that is, partition or a family ar­rangement. So there is adjustment of shares, crystallization of the respective rights in family properties and therefore it cannot be construed as a transfer in the eyes of law.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/capital-gains-tax-share-transfer-family-arrangement.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regularization fees for violation in construction form part of Construction &amp; Depreciation allowable</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/regularization-fees-violation-construction-form-part-construction-depreciation-allowable.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/regularization-fees-violation-construction-form-part-construction-depreciation-allowable.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 15:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 32]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fees paid to regularise violation in construction of a building pursuant to state government ordinance forms part of construction cost and depreciation is allowable on such cost under Section 32 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further the Tribunal held that the restriction provided under Section 37 of the Act on deduction of penal expenditure is not applicable to depreciation claim covered under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal has also held that the Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Kar) relied by the tax department is also not applicable to the facts of the case. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/regularization-fees-violation-construction-form-part-construction-depreciation-allowable.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Software License Charges &#8211; Payment for right to use of copyrighted article do not constitute ‘royalty’</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/software-license-charges-payment-copyrighted-article-constitute-royalty.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/software-license-charges-payment-copyrighted-article-constitute-royalty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 15:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no disagreement between the taxpayer and the AO that (a) in terms of the license agreement, the taxpayer has granted only right to use of a copyrighted article and not for the use of a copyright and (b) the copyright continue to remain with the CGI. The Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc has observed that if the payment was for a copyright, it was liable to be classified as ‘royalty’ under the Act as well as under the tax treaty.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/software-license-charges-payment-copyrighted-article-constitute-royalty.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Living allowance on deputation or for temporarily deployment Outside India not taxable</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/living-allowance-deputation-temporarily-deployment-india-taxable.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/living-allowance-deputation-temporarily-deployment-india-taxable.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 14:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Living allowance paid in addition to the regular salaries and benefits in India to the employees of Indian Company who are temporarily deployed in US will be exempt from tax. The deputation agreement between the taxpayers and the Indian Company clearly states that the additional compensation in the US has been paid in lump sum without any reference to meet personal expenses at the place where the duties of office or employment were to be performed. The additional compensation received by the taxpayers was in the form of a special allowance or benefit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/living-allowance-deputation-temporarily-deployment-india-taxable.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ITAT directs to allow risk adjustment on the comparables margin vis-a-vis the taxpayer’s</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-directs-risk-adjustment-comparables-margin-visavis-taxpayers.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-directs-risk-adjustment-comparables-margin-visavis-taxpayers.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 14:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assessee had acquired the business and also earned income out of the said transaction by cost plus basis. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee has not encountered the risk of having a single customer, whereas the same cannot be said as regards the comparables. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the comparables were dealing in open market and therefore, they were prone to the marketing and technical risks. They would have incurred certain expenditure on marketing services and also to safeguard the technical use by them.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-directs-risk-adjustment-comparables-margin-visavis-taxpayers.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commission paid to director was not in lieu of dividend and therefore allowed u/s.36(1)(ii)</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/commission-paid-director-lieu-dividend-allowed-us361ii.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/commission-paid-director-lieu-dividend-allowed-us361ii.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 14:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tribunal observed that the commission paid was disallowed by invoking provisions under Section 36(1)(ii) and not by invoking Section 40A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. This implies that the AO had not disputed the services rendered by Renu Munjal but he was of the opinion that dividend had been paid in the garb of commission because it actually reduced the corpus available for distribution as dividend.  Section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act had been incorporated to check, inter-alia, private companies from avoiding tax by distributing their profits to their members (showing them to be their employees) by way of commission and not by way of dividend. The AO was not correct in holding that the corpus for paying the dividend had reduced as it does not reflect the correct legal position with reference to section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/commission-paid-director-lieu-dividend-allowed-us361ii.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Additional Depreciation can not be denied on the ground that electricity is not an article or thing</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/additional-depreciation-denied-ground-electricity-article.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/additional-depreciation-denied-ground-electricity-article.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reference was made to the decisions of Apex Court rendered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board 35 STC 188 (sic). In this case it was held that electricity is goods within the meaning of section 2(3) of Central Province and Virar Sales-tax Act. This decision was rendered in the context of the language of a particular statute. As such this meaning cannot be extended to the facts of the present case]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/additional-depreciation-denied-ground-electricity-article.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If non-resident agent operates outside country, no part of his income arises in India</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/nonresident-agent-operates-country-part-income-arises-india.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/nonresident-agent-operates-country-part-income-arises-india.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 195]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agreement between the assessee and the Non Resident is only for rendering services which cannot be considered as technical services and as there is no PE to the said non resident in India, the amount does not accrue or arise in India and further as there is no need for deducting the amount under section 195, there is no violation of provisions of section 195 and accordingly the same cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/nonresident-agent-operates-country-part-income-arises-india.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contribution towards costs of research / for the use of process or formula is Royalty</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/contribution-costs-research-process-formula-royalty.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/contribution-costs-research-process-formula-royalty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 12:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAR rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the terms of the agreement, it appears to us, that it is only an agreement to share the product of the Research and Development allegedly without payment of royalty, but paying a consideration for the use described as the contribution towards the costs of the researchincurred by that particular party. This payment occurs only on use of the product of the research and not otherwise. This payment can hence only be understood as a consideration for the use of the process or formula developed by that member. It would satisfy the definition of royalty under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1 )(vi) of the Act. The applicant is either the recipient of the consideration or the conduit through which the consideration is paid to the concerned party.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/contribution-costs-research-process-formula-royalty.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consideration for Grant of the use or consideration for right to use is Royalty</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-grant-consideration-royalty.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-grant-consideration-royalty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 12:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAR rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The applicant is in the business of gathering, collating and making available or imparting information concerning industrial and commercial knowledge, experience and skill and consequently the payment received from the subscriber would be royalty in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. If so, the subscription received is royalty liable to be taxed as such under the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-grant-consideration-royalty.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RPM most appropriate method for computing ALP of transaction wherein the taxpayer involved in purchase &amp; resale of finished goods</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rpm-method-computing-alp-transaction-taxpayer-involved-purchase-resale-finished-goods.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rpm-method-computing-alp-transaction-taxpayer-involved-purchase-resale-finished-goods.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 05:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I.T.O. Vs. L'oreal India P. Ltd.  - ITAT acknowledged the fact that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is one of the standard methods in case of distribution and marketing activities i.e. when goods are purchased from Associated Enterprises (AEs) and sold to unrelated parties. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rpm-method-computing-alp-transaction-taxpayer-involved-purchase-resale-finished-goods.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S. 195 Withholding of tax not required on salary of seconded employee reimbursed to a foreign company since such payment is not for rendering technical services</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/195-withholding-tax-required-salary-seconded-employee-reimbursed-foreign-company-payment-rendering-technical-services.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/195-withholding-tax-required-salary-seconded-employee-reimbursed-foreign-company-payment-rendering-technical-services.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 04:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 195]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indian Company exercising control and supervision over a seconded employee and bearing the salary cost should be considered as an economic employer and not liable to withhold tax under Section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement of the salary to the foreign company on which tax has been withheld under Section 1923 of the Act. Further the Tribunal held that the payment to IDS USA did not represent ‘Fees for Technical Services’]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/195-withholding-tax-required-salary-seconded-employee-reimbursed-foreign-company-payment-rendering-technical-services.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HC Takes Notice of TDS Refund Harassment by Dept &amp; Demands Answers</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/hc-takes-notice-tds-refund-harassment-dept-demands-answers.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/hc-takes-notice-tds-refund-harassment-dept-demands-answers.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 03:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TDS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CA Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to Delhi High Court in which he set out the numerous difficulties faced by Income Tax assessees country wide due to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and the TDS deducted at source and request that certain directions be issued by this Hon’ble Court so that lakhs of tax payers are saved from the harassment in filing revised returns/rectification petitions every year.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/hc-takes-notice-tds-refund-harassment-dept-demands-answers.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section 234B Interest cannot be levied on Non Resident for failure on the part of payee to deduct TDS</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-234b-interest-levied-resident-failure-part-payee-deduct-tds.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-234b-interest-levied-resident-failure-part-payee-deduct-tds.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 01:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 195]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case it is an undisputed fact that the tax on the entire income received by these assessees was required to be deducted at source at the appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195 of the Act . The Revenue have not placed before us any material controverting these findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor pointed out any contrary decision so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-234b-interest-levied-resident-failure-part-payee-deduct-tds.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Books of account can be rejected either for default of &#8216;incomplete books&#8217; or for &#8216;inaccurate books&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/books-account-rejected-default-incomplete-books-inaccurate-books.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/books-account-rejected-default-incomplete-books-inaccurate-books.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 01:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is a fact that the inaccuracy involved in instant case is of Rs. 124.04 lakhs which works out to nearly 6 per cent of the profits and the assessee describes the same as trivial and ignorable. Stand of revenue in this regard is that the Assessing Officer has only to establish the inaccuracy in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the triviality or otherwise is not the issue. The provisions are clear that in principle the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction under section 145 either for the reasoning of the 'incompleteness of the books or for the reasoning of the inaccuracy of the same. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/books-account-rejected-default-incomplete-books-inaccurate-books.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disallowances u/s 40(a) not applicable to charitable trust/institution u/s 11</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowances-40a-applicable-charitable-trustinstitution-11.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowances-40a-applicable-charitable-trustinstitution-11.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 01:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section 40 is applicable only when deductions under Sections 30 to 38 are being made in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession under Section 28. The exception in Section 40 is carved out, only for the purpose of Section 28 and not for computing the exemption of income of a charitable trust under Section 11. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowances-40a-applicable-charitable-trustinstitution-11.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will can not be rejected as valid document merely on the ground that it is neither registered nor notarized or was not found during search</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejected-valid-document-ground-registered-notarized-search.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejected-valid-document-ground-registered-notarized-search.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 22:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee while explaining the source of jewellery interalia stated that Mrs. Darshana K. Jethani has received jewellery of gold and diamond by way of ‘Will’ of Smt.Lachmi Ukarmal Mangtani, her grandmother. In support, he also placed on record the copy of the said will for verification and also stated that the said will was executed in the presence of Dr.Murli M. Ratnani (PAN- address). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejected-valid-document-ground-registered-notarized-search.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interest U/s. 234A to 234C Not Payable If Assessment Order Silent</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-234a-234c-payable-assessment-order-silent.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-234a-234c-payable-assessment-order-silent.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 05:49:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CA Sandeep Kanoi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=50229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest, the view taken in CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd 247 ITR 209 (SC) is that such charge by the assessing officer should be specific and clear and assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer has applied its mind and  has ordered charging of interest. The mandatory nature of charging of interest and the actual charging of interest by application of mind and the mention of the proviso of law under which such interest is charged are two different things.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interest-234a-234c-payable-assessment-order-silent.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

