ITAT judgments

  • May
  • 12

CENVAT credit written off on surrender of Excise Registration Certificate is allowable as deduction u/s 37

In the facts of the present case, the assessee had paid CENVAT on purchase of raw material which was deposited in its PLA account for claiming the benefit of set off against the excise duty payable on the manufactured items i.e. branded yearn. The assessee was paying higher rate of excise duty on the raw [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

S. 54/54F exemption available on Investment in purchase of plot/land for construction of house

Exemption claimed by the assessee under S.54 of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the sale consideration received from the sale of flats itself, in purchasing the plot. Law is well settled by the judicial precedents that investment in purchase of pot for construction of house would entitle an assessee to claim exemption u/s.54 or 54F of the Act. Board’s circular No.667 dated 18.10.1993 also says so.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS – Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping does not lay down correct law

debates in the Parliament are ordinarily not considered as the aids for interpretation of the ultimate provision which may be brought into the statute. The debates at best indicate the opinion of the individual members and are ordinarily not relied upon for interpreting the provisions, particularly when the provisions are plain. We are conscious that [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

S. 40A(2)(b) Interest Payment at 15% to related parties is not excessive

Only reason advanced for making disallowance out of the interest paid to two coparceners was that the interest paid to other parties was at 12% per annum. We find that the interest paid to two coparceners at the rate of 15% could not be said to be excessive, considering the prevailing rate of interest during [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

Liquidated damages allowable as business expenditure

The impugned amount was not in the nature of penalty on account of disobedience or infraction of any law. In fact, the assessee being in the business of execution of Civil Construction work, therefore under an obligation to complete the contract within a specified time and in case of delay, he is subject to liquidated [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 08

TP- Comparability of High End Cos with Low End Cos in ITES/ BPO Sector

Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No.7140 /Mum/2012, Date of Pronouncement: 26/4/2013 The dispute is regarding selection of comparables for bench marking the international transaction entered into by the assessee. The assessee had selected 9 comparables as unrelated parties for comparing the transaction in case of the assessee. The AO further [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 08

S. 37 Expenses on gifts distributed among members & staff in the course of business is allowable

The stand of the revenue that expenditure incurred by the society on giving presents to as own members would amount to expenditure on itself or application of its income to its members also could not be countenanced as the society was entirely a separate entity

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 08

Loss on foreign currency forward contracts which is not in respect of specified export or import is speculation loss

Forward transactions in commodities may fall within proviso (a) to section 43(5) of the Act, it is necessary that the raw materials or merchandise in respect of which the forward transactions have been made by the assessee must have a direct connection with the goods manufactured or the merchandise sold by him.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 07

AO can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee

Assessing 0fficer can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The condition precedent for the Assessing 0fficer entering upon a determination of the amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 06

Sec.54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets & non-depreciable assets,

Following the decision of ACE Builders (P) 28 ITR 2000(Bom) and Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt Ltd 262 ITR 58 (Gau). It was held that Section 54E does not make any distinction between the depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets, therefore, the investment u/s 54E is a permissible investment. With this factual as also legal background, we [...]

Read the Full Article