Follow Us:

All High Courts

Common area has to be excluded while computing built-up area for benefit u/s. 80-IB(10)

February 28, 2012 4214 Views 0 comment Print

Keeping in mind the fact that obstacles were put in assessees getting the benefit, the Legislature introduced the definition of built-up area in sub-section (14)(a) of section 80-IB. From a reading of the definition of built-up area, the intention is clear. In calculating the built-up area it is only the inner measurements of the residential unit on the floor level, which has to be taken into consideration. If there are any projections and balconies and if it exclusively belongs to the residential units, then that also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the built-up area.

As per Import and Export Policy for the period 2009-2014 mport of second hand goods except capital goods is restricted and special import license is required

February 28, 2012 1838 Views 0 comment Print

Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported under the open general license.

Interest on delayed receipt of compensation on land acquisition is liable to TDS

February 28, 2012 9199 Views 0 comment Print

The acquisition is of the year 2001 while the compensation has been paid somewhere in the year 2009. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [1996] 89 Taxman 119, it is to be held that interest received on delayed payment is a revenue receipt exigible to Income-tax. Since the amount has already been deposited by the respondent-authority and the deduction is in accordance with section 194A, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in upholding the action taken by respondent-authority in deducting the amount.

Reward for tax info should be reduced on the ground that amount of penalty cannot be determined

February 27, 2012 913 Views 0 comment Print

In the first three minutes, reward has been awarded @ 19.4% that is nearly the maximum possible rate. The said reward was on the principal amount of customs duty of Rs.1.21 crores and, therefore, the Reward Committee was competent to award a lower amount/percentage on the penalty and fine amount but this is not the reason and ground given in the last two minutes of the Reward Committee.

Lease Rent – Only Finance charge represents the revenue receipt

February 27, 2012 4849 Views 0 comment Print

Prakash Leasing Ltd. v. DCIT – The lease rentals is not the real income of the assessee. The lease rental consists of financing charge as well as capital recovery. The amount received towards capital recovery constitute the capital expenditure, whereas the financing charge represents the revenue receipt, which is the real income. It is as per the Accounting Standards prescribed by the ICAI. Therefore, the assessee under the Act has to offer to tax only the real income and not the total receipt. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act on the capital recovery.

Merely because vehicles were used by lessees in their business, Assessee cannot be denied depreciation

February 27, 2012 1210 Views 0 comment Print

Merely because the vehicles were used by the lessees in their business, the assessee cannot be denied the depreciation @ 40%. In fact, it is not in dispute that in respect of all these vehicles, the assessee has acknowledged the receipt of lease rent and has shown the same in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he is claiming depreciation. If the authorities were of the view that the assessee has failed to prove his ownership over those vehicles, then, if depreciation is to be disallowed then they also should not have taken that lease rental agreement for the purpose of making the assessment. Under these circumstances, it is also not in dispute that for the subsequent years, the assessee had been granted the benefit of depreciation. Therefore, the order to be passed by the authorities should be consistent.

AO justified in initiating reassessment proceedings based on order passed in TP proceedings in earlier A.Y.

February 25, 2012 468 Views 0 comment Print

In the case on hand it is to be noticed that it is a case of income escaping the assessment. It may not be a tax of avoidance but it would be a case of a return, which is filed with all the material escaping the attention of the Assessing Authority.

Foreign Lawyers cannot practice law in India – Madras High Court

February 22, 2012 1425 Views 1 comment Print

A.K. Balaji Vs. GOI (Madras High Court)- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action against respondents or any other Foreign Law Firm or Foreign Lawyers, who are illegally practising the Profession of Law in India, and for a further direction to forbear them from having any legal practice either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation and commercial transactions, in any manner whatsoever within the territory of India.

Expenses related to STCG cannot be apportioned to LTCG

February 22, 2012 1279 Views 0 comment Print

Having regard to the dates on which the sites were acquired the long term capital gains and short term capital gains were arrived at . The assessee has paid the money by way of account payee cheque to one B.G. to clear the slum dwellers, which amount has been acknowledged by him. Expenses related only to short term capital gains. According to the assessee, the slum dwellers were in possession of the land, which resulted in short-term capital gains.

Equipment belongs to vendor imported in India cannot be transferred to other on winding up of company

February 22, 2012 1198 Views 0 comment Print

This is an application for the winding up of Tantia Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter the company). It is made by a Malaysian company by the name of Road Builder (M) Sdn Bhd, (hereinafter the petitioning creditor). These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed, on 15th December, 2007, to sell to the company plant, machinery and vehicles at a total consideration of Rs. 2,75,73,614.41/-.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031