Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
In this judgment HC held that CBDT’s Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 applies to appeal filed before the issue of instruction also and all appeal pending on the date of instruction before High Court in which tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits of Rs. 10 Lakh for filing appeal by Income Tax Department can be held as non Maintainable. High Court has held as follows:-
The levy of interest is on the actual amount, which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax from the due date. The interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly.
CIT vs. DSL DSoftware Ltd (Karnataka High Court) (i) Income Tax department made liable to pay Cost of Rs.1 lac for making the assessee to contest the appeals in three forums and wasting court’s time and tax payers’ money. (ii) Deduction u/s 10B available for the extended period upto 10 years.
Jiyuan Li Vs Registrar Of Companies (Delhi HC) Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with.
If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F of the Act.
Transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyrights would fall within mischief of royalty – In both the cases, it was held that consideration paid by the Indian customers or end-users to the assessee-a foreign supplier, for transfer of the right to use the software/computer programme in respect of the copyrights falls within the mischief of royalty as defined under sub-clause [v] to Explanation 2 to Clause [vi] of section 9[1] of the Income-tax Acts 1961.
In a major relief to equity brokers, the conflicts arising on their bad debt claims have been put to rest by the Bombay High Court. Affirming to a ruling by Mumbai ITAT special bench In the case of DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 40 SOT 432, the court on Tuesday said stock brokers were eligible to claim deduction of the entire amount due to them from clients as a bad debt, even though only the brokerages is offered as income.
Hon’ble High Court held that provisions of Section 80-HHC required two conditions to be satisfied before an assessee could claim deduction there under. The two conditions being:- (i) the goods being export out of India and (ii) Sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable in convertible foreign exchange. The above conditions are satisfied cumulatively. Here sale made to UNICEF in India would not amount to export of goods. Accordingly the assessee is not entitled to deduction U/s 80-HHC of the Act.
The petitioner assessee had filed an appeal against the reassessment order as it was mandated and required to be filed within the period of limitation. They have, however, withdrawn the said appeal. Looking into the factual background of the present case, we feel that the plea of alternative remedy raised by the Revenue should be and ought to be rejected. Defence of alternative remedy in the present case will result in miscarriage of justice and cause prejudice to the petitioner.
