The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when deciding the appeal and the same was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’.

Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Minimum alternate tax – Assessment year 2000-01 – Assessee had created a reserve in assessment year 1986-87 by enhancing value of assets – Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.53 crores from said reserve and credited it to profit and loss account – In assessment year 2000-01 assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1.53 crores from book profit for calculating adjusted book profit under section 115JA – Assessing Officer allowed assessee’s claim

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes -

Himachal Pradesh Environment vs. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The assessee, a statutory Board, was set up for prevention of pollution of streams and wells in the State and other allied activities. It derived income from various testing charges etc. The CIT granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act on the basis that the activities of the [...]

CASE LAW DETAILS Decided by: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B” New Delhi (Special Bench).  In the case of: M/s Concept Creations vs. ACIT, Appeal No.: ITA No. 3370/Del/08 (Asstt. Yr: 2005-06), Order dated: – 15-09-2009. SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Vide Notification dated 3rd June 2009, Rule 13E was inserted in the Income Tax [...]

Having an effective management in India is not a sufficient ground to deny exemption from capital gains tax to a company that is based in Mauritius, ruled a Delhi bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that any expenditure, which is viewed as an offence or is prohibited by law, but is of a commercial nature incurred in the normal course of business, can be treated as an outgo at the time of calculating tax liabilities.

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW The mobilization/ demolization charges received by a non-resident foreign company in connection with supply of plant and machinery form part of gross receipts for the purpose of computing the income under section 44BB irrespective of whether the same was paid or payable in or outside India.

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW In view of the clear cut guidelines of the RBI regarding transfer of AFS category investment into HTM category investment, the claim of the assessee-bank towards provisions of depreciation on account of transfer of securities from AFS category to HTM category is to be allowed.

The following Bences will not function during the period 31.08.09 to 03.09.09” A-1, E-1, K, L & SMC”The cases are adjourned to respective dates.please see separate Notice.