"20 March 2013" Archive

S. 35(2AB) Allowability of Expenditure on clinical drug trial incurred outside

Commissioner Of Income Tax- I Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

Before a pharmaceutical drug could be put in the market, the regulatory authorities would insist on strict tests and research on all possible aspects, such as possible reactions, effect of the drug and so on. Extensive clinical trials, therefore, would be an intrinsic part of development of any such new pharmaceutical drug. It cannot be i...

Read More

Deduction U/s. 80HHE available on Income from Technical services provided outside India for development of computer software

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. B.T. System and Service Limited (Madras High Court)

When the specific provision under Section 80HHE is concerned about technical services rendered in connection with software development, we do not approve of the line of reasoning of the Tribunal. One cannot read any such choice available to the assessee for claiming deduction either under Section 80-O or under Section 80HHE of the Income ...

Read More

Application u/s. 154 for rectification of order passed by CIT U/s. 264 is maintainable

Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Bombay High Court)

In the present case, the revisional authority had passed an order in revision on December 6, 2010. The application for rectification was not made before the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order which was the subject-matter of revision but the application was made before the revisional authority itself for rectification. Such ...

Read More

Incentivizing flow of funds from foreign subsidiaries into India

The Hon’ble Finance Minister (FM) presented the Union Budget 2013 amidst major challenges facing the Indian economy. Some of the most important considerations for the FM were reviving growth, increasing savings and investments, reining in inflation and gaining back the confidence of the foreign investors. ...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Initiation of Reassessment based on change of opinion not valid

Ashwamegh Co.Op. Hous. Soc. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Gujarat High Court)

In the present case, the Assessing Officer having examined the entire claim threadbare, any deviation from his decision on the ground that the receipts of the assessee from sale of land should be treated as business income in and not as long term capital gain must be taken to be a change of opinion. It may be that in the assessment order,...

Read More

Cost of acquisition by successor during succession will not form part of cost of Asset

Sonia Maria Mistry Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)

In the instant case, the capital asset having become the asset of the previous owner prior to 1-4-1981, the fair market value (FMV) of the same as on 1-4-1981 has been adopted as the deemed cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee as well, and on which aspect of the matter there is no dispute. How could then, that being the case, ...

Read More

Unrelated expenses cannot be apportioned to Units eligible for deduction U/s. 80IB

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

Revenue submitted that any research and development activity carried out by the head office would automatically ensure to the benefit of the units/industrial undertakings. He submitted that the head office itself does not manufacture any medicines, the benefit of the research and development would be utilized for manufacturing the product...

Read More

TPO may use date which may not have been available to the assessee at the time of preparation of statutory transfer pricing study/documentation

Yodlee Infotech (P.) Ltd. Vs Income-tax Officer (ITAT Bangalore)

As regards the data used by the TPO while determining the ALP, we find that it is to be as per the provisions of section 92D of the Act that every person who has entered into international transactions is required to maintain information and documentation thereof. Rule 10B(4) provides that the information and documents as specified under ...

Read More

Assessee must substantiate its claim that payment in cash were not in violation of section 40A(3)

Shri Raman Mahajan, HUF Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Amritsar)

As regards the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more, the assessee has not substantiated his claim that the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.20,000/- or less before the AO. It is also not on record whether such claim was actually made before the AO or not. With regard to the claim before the ld. CIT(...

Read More

For properties acquired prior to 1-4-1981, cost of acquisition will be FMV as on 1-4-1981

Income Tax Officer– 19(3)(3) Vs Ms. Noella P. Perry (ITAT Mumbai)

The primary facts of the case, i.e., the manner in which the assessee became the owner of 50% of the house property under reference, which stands sold during the year, is not in doubt or dispute, and stands stated at para 4, pgs. 1 and 2 of the assessment order. The property stood bequeathed to the assessee along with her sister, by their...

Read More