"26 September 2012" Archive - Page 3

Addition based on DVO report for insignificant difference not justified

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

In the absence of a finding rejecting the accounts of the assessee, the reference to the DVO could not have been made by the Assessing Officer in the first place. It is evident that the valuation in the instant case was uncritically accepted by the Assessing Officer. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, wit...

Read More

Every tax advantageous action or inaction cannot be treated as a colourable device

Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) Vs Maersk Line UK Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) IT Appeal No. 2150 (Kol.) of 2009

It is important to bear in mind uncontroverted claim of the assessee that there were sufficient reserves and surplus, which were eligible for distribution as 'dividend', and the NIPL had sufficient cash balances as well. The nature of amounts distributed as dividend has not been altered as a result of, what the revenue authorities describ...

Read More

Deduction u/s. 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) is available in respect of capital work-in-progress

Bangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore (ITAT Bangalore)

The deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) is allowed for a period of ten years. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether assessment year 2005-06 should be the first year in which the deduction should be allowed. It was clarified at the time of hearing of the appeal that from the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee has been g...

Read More

Section 40A(3) – Payment to milk producers in cash not disallowable

Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad Vs Heritage Foods (India) Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad)

The economic problems of milk producers are such that the Parliament/CBDT felt it necessary to incorporate that milk producer should be free to receive payments in cash. Of course, such exclusion from the rigour of the provisions of section 40A(3), is subjected to certain conditions....

Read More

No change of opinion if AO not examined or applied his mind on a particular issue-HC

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Usha International Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not ...

Read More

SEBI fines CA for failing to respond to summons

Market regulator Sebi today imposed a penalty of Rs 6 lakh on Dilip S Mehta, owner of a chartered accountancy firm, for failing to respond to summons issued by it in relation to a probe into the affairs of erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan. The matter pertains to alleged irregularities committed by former promoters of Bank of Rajasthan (BoR)....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Monitoring of filing of appeal in HC – Non-receipt of quarterly reports as per CBDT Instruction

letter No. DGIT(L&R)/HC Appeal/Quarterly Report/2012-13/603 26/09/2012

Non-receipt of quarterly reports as per the CBDT Instruction No. 7 of 2011 The CCIT/CIT shall ensure due adherence to this instruction. In order to facilitate monitoring, a register shall be maintained in the office of CIT as per Annexure-IV to this Instruction....

Read More

S. 14A applies to funds not directly attributable to either exempt or taxable income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Champion Commercial CoLt (ITAT Kolkata)

Interest expenses directly attributable to tax exempt income as also directly attributable to taxable income, are required to be excluded from computation of common interest expenses to be allocated under rule 8D(2)(ii)....

Read More

Depreciation allowable on leased asset which in substance is a purchase

Mather & Platt (I.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City - VI (Bombay High Court)

Section 32 of the Act indeed entitles an assessee, who is the owner of a property, to depreciation. As we have already held, the arrangement between the lessor and the assessee was, in effect, an agreement of sale of the property by the lessor to the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, the owner of the property having acquired the same ...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

September 2021