ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain is to be taxed in the hands of legal owner of the property who has transferred the property by registering sale deed. Merely because interest of housing loan is claimed by the son of the assessee, it doesn’t make him the owner of the property.
ITAT Chennai held that rice being specified in schedule is covered within the definition of agricultural produce as per provision of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. Accordingly, as per Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules the same is exempt from disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Calcutta High Court held that order of transfer passed invoking power under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without opportunity of being heard is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271-1-c of the Income Tax Act not imposable when the addition on account of bogus purchases is done on adhoc estimated basis As adhoc estimated based addition doesn’t tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on documents impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and unjustified as no such material were found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there doesn’t exist any formal/ informal agreement between the assessee and AE to share/ reimburse AMP (Advertising Marketing and Promotion) expenses incurred by the assessee in India. The same cannot be held liable as an international transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that it is fact that depreciation on software/ machinery was claimed and duly allowed in F.Y. 2012-2013. However, due to uncertainty of business revenue could not be generated by using the software in F.Y. 2013-14. Accordingly, depreciation cannot be disallowed alleging non-generation of revenue.
Karnataka High Court held that in absence of any willful default on the part of the company, authorized signatory (vice-president) cannot be hauled into the web of crime for an offence under section 409 of the IPC.
Orissa High Court held that assessee has discharged its initial burden of showing that the transaction was only a branch transfer, whereas, the Department has been unable to prove the transaction was not merely a branch transfer but was a movement of goods by way of interstate sale. Accordingly, Central Sales Tax not leviable.
Jharkhand High Court held that as per Explanation-III to section 2(xlviii) of JVAT Act sale price shall not include cost for transport of goods from seller to buyer provided such cost is separately charged to buyer.
