"17 March 2019" Archive

Expenditure on removal of encumbrance includible in cost of new house property

ACIT Vs Himanshu Jayanti Lal Kamdar (ITAT Ahmedabad)

While computing exemption under section 54F, expenditure incurred towards vacating the new house property from tenants were includible as part of its cost, because existence of encumbrance was specified in the purchase agreement and original cost of acquisition was much lower than fair market value of the house property due to such attach...

Read More

‘Right to collect toll’ being intangible asset eligible to depreciation U/s. 32(1)(ii)

ITO Vs M/s. Ashoka Highways (Bhandara) Ltd. (ITAT Pune)

Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reve...

Read More

Interest earned on deposit of surplus funds – Business Income?

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs A CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

 Interest earned on deposit of surplus funds could not be taxed as business income in view of the fact assessee was not in the business of money-lending....

Read More

Addition U/s 68 justified on failure to substantiate gift with supportive evidences

Vicky Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 68--No documentary evidences- As assessee failed to substantiate gift transaction with supportive evidences, AO was justified in making addition under section 68....

Read More

Licence fee paid for using MS Office software cannot be treated as Capital expenditure-

M/s. ILink Multitech Solutions Pvt. Vs DCIT (ITAT Cheenai)

By purchasing licence to use MS Office software assessee received enduring benefit in the course of earning of profit, however, it did not become owner of the software, therefore, licence fee could not be treated as capital expenditure....

Read More

Additions u/s 68 merely for not producing directors of investment companies is not sustainable

Income Tax Officer Vs BSNI Commercial Pvt. Limited (ITAT Kolkata)

Whether Additions u/s 68 merely on the ground that the assessee could not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies is sustainable....

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Appeal (High Court)–statute confers a limited right of appeal only in a case which involves substantial question of law

Janardhanam Balaji Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

Janardhanam Balaji Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Right of appeal is not automatic. When statute confers a limited right of appeal only in a case which involves substantial question of law, it is not open to sit in appeal over factual findings arrived at by AO, CIT(A) and Appellate Tribunal. Hence, appeal was not entertained. […]...

Read More

Situs of owner of intangible asset, would be closest approximation of situs of intangible asset

M/s. Lal Products Vs Intelligence Officer (Kerala High Court)

M/s. Lal Products Vs Intelligence Officer (Kerala High Court) Hon’ble Kerala High Court had an occasion to determine the situs of sale of incorporeal goods namely, patents and trademarks when the contract of sale was executed by the Appellant in the state of Gujarat where they had one operating manufacturing plant while the HO of [&hell...

Read More

HC on issue of prosecution notice despite admission of Appeal by HC

M. Suresh Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court)

M. Suresh Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) 1. This Motion is taken by the appellant assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 738 of 2016. The appeal arises out of a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. […]...

Read More