"28 October 2012" Archive

PF, ESI paid after 31st March but before filing of return is allowable

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore Vs Solar Exports (Karnataka High Court)

The grievance of the revenue is that proviso appended to section 43B of the Act permitting allowing of deduction of PF, ESI etc., subsequent to the close of the accounting period but before the return is filed, should not have been followed but disallowance must be upheld. It has not been disputed before us that the proviso has been inser...

Read More

No Section 54 exemption If assessee himself demolishes building before sale

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle Vs Ved Prakash Rakhra (Karnataka High Court)

As per the Development Agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee and his brothers have demolished the existing residential building and handed over the vacant space to an extent of 16800 sq ft. to the Developer for construction of the apartment. Since the residential building has already been demolished by the assessee and ...

Read More

Filing returns without full particulars fell within the mischief of section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Smt. Meera Devi (Delhi High Court)

Section 271(1)(c) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalties wherever the assessee does not furnish accurate particulars, in the form of returns, such as concealing the sources of income, or withholding true and full information. This duty was spelt out by the Supreme Court as one cast on the assessee to disclose all facts, includ...

Read More

Striking off of a company can only be done on companies own admission that it is defunct

Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) (P.) Ltd. Vs Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (Calcutta High Court)

On reading sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Section 560, it does seem to me that a company can only be defunct, if it does not reply to the notice or says in reply that it does not carry on any business or is not in operation. If it asserts to the contrary, it cannot be struck off at all. Hence striking off is on the admission by the...

Read More

In case of common services credit attributable to trading activity is required to be reversed

Lacto Cosmetics (VAPI) (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Coming to the cenvat credit proposed to be denied on the ground that services were used for both exempted and non exempted goods as per the denial of proportionate credit as per the OIA, it has to be noted that admittedly the first appellant was engaged in the manufacture of animal feed which is exempted and was also engaged in trading ac...

Read More

Deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) cannot be denied for unauthorised excess construction

Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Bangalore Vs Mahaveer Calyx (ITAT Bangalore)

As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in sectio...

Read More

Commission on sales is to be allowed in year of sale even if sale was realised in next financial year

Devendra Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Company Circle-1(4) (ITAT Chennai)

In the instant case, the liability to pay commission Rs. 2,94,701/- has arisen by virtue of sales in the financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The realization of sale amount in the next financial year will not make much difference as the liability to pay commission had crystallized in the financial year 2004-05 i...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied for mere rejection of debatable claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Integrated Master Securities (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

What is to be seen in the instant case, is whether the claim for deduction of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, made by the assessee was bona-fide and whether all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act....

Read More

Approval U/s. 10(23C)(vi) cannot be refused on Mere inference by DGIT(E) as to irregularities in accounts

Mahavira Foundation Vs Director General of Income-tax (Delhi High Court)

Having regard to the facts noted above as well as explanation adduced by the assessee in respect of the payments and the suspicious approach of the DGIT(E) towards the evidence adduced by the assessee without noticing the crucial facts such as payment by cheques etc., it seems that the DGIT(E) was not justified in law in readily inferring...

Read More

Penalty not justified for disallowance of Bona fide claim

Skil Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Mumbai)

As explained by assessee, the income could not be offered as assessee sought approval under section 10(23G) as early as of 24-8-2005 which was followed with reminder letter addressed to the CCIT on 17-1-2006. Since the application was made in form No. 56E, it is natural that the Board will either accept or reject the application in a reas...

Read More

Featured Posts