Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL-139-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue whether the discount retained by Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs) on sale of Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards or recharge coupons belonging to the Taxpayer is liable for withholding tax, under the provisions of Indian Tax Law (ITL)
The concept of sub-contract is intrinsically linked with section 194C(2); if there is no sub-contract then the person making payment is not liable to deduct tax at source even if payment is being made to a resident.
CIT Vs Aimil Ltd – It was held that if the employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Act and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on such delayed payment but could incur penalties also. Those Acts permit the employer to make deposit with some delays. Therefore, these amounts could not be disallowed under section 43B
CIT vs. Lokmat Newspapers (Bombay High Court) (Income Tax Appeal No 3005 of 2009). Speculative loss incurred in earlier years by a company can be set off against profit earned on delivery-based share trading transactions. The HC held that since the business of delivery-based share trading transactions is deemed to be a speculative business for a company, such set off is permissible.
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC provides that 90% of interest, rent etc has to be reduced from the “Profits & gains” for purposes of s. 80HHC. In Lalsons Enterprises 89 ITD 25, the Special Bench of the Tribunal held that in computing the said interest, rent etc, the assessee was permitted to net off the interest receipt against the interest expenditure
The only reason which has been given seeking reopening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that suppression of sales have taken place on account of the fact that when average price of the closing stock is multiplied with the quantity of the sales in the year then the value of the sales would be at a higher figure than that as declared by the assessee.
Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Ltd vs. Bajaj Auto Limited [MANU/MH/0109/ 2010]. In a decision, which is likely to have a wide impact on joint ventures/ investment in public companies, the Bombay High Court (“Court”) has recently held that any clause in an agreement which restricts the free transferability of shares of public companies is void and non- enforceable
A bare reading of s. 2(28A) would reveal that interest is payable in respect of ‘moneys borrowed’ or ‘debt incurred’. It, of course, would include a deposit, claim or other similar right or application of any service fee or other charges in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred. All the subscribers/ members of the chit contribute moneys each month and bid takes place among the members.
In respect of AY 2004- 05, the assessee computed its book profits u/s 115JB by claiming a deduction for provision for doubtful debts and advances and the same was allowed vide order u/s 143 (3). On 18.07.2008 (within 4 years), the AO issued a notice u/s 148 inter alia on the ground that the provision for doubtful debts had to be added back to the book profits.
CIT Vs Himgiri Foods Limited (Gujarat High Court)- On a plain reading of section 143(1B) it is apparent that the provision mandates that if after the issuance of intimation, a revised return is furnished by an assessee under sub-section (5) section 139 it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to process the revised return and amend the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a)
