SC held that Rental Income from business of leasing out house properties taxable as business income and not income from House property
Assessees engaged in providing telecom services deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed in respect of even those incidental incomes earned during the course of telecom business
Delhi HC held that a Chartered Accountant while doing concurrent audit is expected to check the transactions falling within the scope of audit in depth. Thus, non-checking of the same would be gross negligence on his part while performing professional duties.Accordingly, he is liable to face the charge of professional misconduct under clause 7 of the First Schedule of the CA Act, 1949.
A CA may drive rashly and negligently and in the process may kill a human being. This conduct would be an offence, but not a misconduct for the purposes of the Act Similarly , in the instant case , the respondent was acting as an individual in his dealings with the complainant which were purely commercial. While selling the shares held by him the respondent was not acting as a Chartered Accountant. He was not discharging any function in relation to his practice as a Chartered Accountant.
P&H HC held that guarantee commission by itself does not bring into existence any asset of an enduring nature. Therefore, guarantee commission is allowable as revenue expenditure.
Delhi High Court in the case of Agya Ram vs. CIT held that there is difference between lease income and license income and when the deed of agreement specifically worded that income will be license income for assessee’s factory premises given on rent then the treatment made by the assessee of considering the same as business income to be prevailed over the general view of the AO that assessee is earning rental income assessable as Income from House Property.
Case Studies : 1. Determination of Place of Supply in E-Commerce transactions 2.Determination of Place of Supply in Telecom transactions –Prepaid 3. Determination of Place of Supply of goods in normal business transactions
ITAT Mumbai held that when the department has not disputed the sales transactions disclosed by the supplier in its books who is an income tax assessee then it cannot assume the same as bogus purchases made by the buyer more so when the transaction has been supported by proper documentary evidences and payments are made to suppliers through proper banking channels.
HC held that photocopying the selected or even substantial parts of purchased books by the University to be used by the students and teachers in educational activity shall not be infringement of copyright as per Sec 52(1)(i).
Amendment in Explanation 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) even when made effective by Finance Act ,2009 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 cannot be made applicable to assessee’s case because both original return and the revised return u/s 153A of the Act have been filed before the amended provisions were brought into the statute (which received assent of President on 13.8.2009).
