Asera Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- With respect to the disallowance of lease cancellation charges it is evident that this loss to the assessee was incurred due to appropriation of security deposit standing with the landlord in lieu of the loss of lease rent to the landlord. As far as the assessee is […]
Ahuja Platinum Properties Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The availability of interest free funds as given in the earlier part of this order is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the assumption that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the interest free funds available with the assessee and interest free loans given to the sister concern. In this regard we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had an occasion to examine the question with regard to disallowance of interest, where the assessee is in possession of both interest free funds as well as borrowed funds on which interest was paid by the assessee.
ACIT Vs M/s Aftek Infosys Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee’ s business is that of computer software services and products development. In order to supply software to its customers as per their requirements, the assessee has necessarily to incur certain expenses which go in making the product customised. When the sale proceeds are considered as revenue receipt, there is no reason for taking such expenses as not revenue because of the fact that there is no enduring benefit to the assessee by incurring such expenses.
CIT Vs Savita N. Mandhana (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the assessee has already included entire consideration for sale of shares, including what could be attributed to non compete obligations, as capital gains. In this view of the matter, the exercise of bifurcation between consideration attributable to sale of shares and for non compete obligations is rendered academic and infructuous.
Ramesh D. Tainwala (ITAT Mumbai)- For proviso(i) to Sec.28(va)(a) to apply there must be transfer of the right to carry on any business. The Assessee in the present case was not carrying on any business on his own but was the promoter and director of the company whose shares were purchased by the Acquirer
DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited (ITAT Delhi)- As per section 14A(2) of the Act, if the AO, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the assessee ’s total income under the Act, the AO shall determine the amount incurred in relation to such income, in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, i.e., under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. However, in the present case, the assessment order does not evince any such satisfaction of the AO regarding the correctness of the claim of the assessee.
Italian Thai Development Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)- The taxpayer has been computing its estimated revenue as per AS-7 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since AY 2003-04 on wards and the AO has not objected to this method in the prior years. Therefore, as per the principle of consistency, the same cannot be rejected in the year under consideration. The observations in the auditor’s report do not have a bearing on correctness of books of accounts and cannot form the basis for rejection of books of accounts.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs.22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital – the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T.Act.
Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- The Issue before the tribunal was whether interest paid on income tax due can be set off against interest received on income tax refunds under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the Division Bench (DB) of the Pune Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion between the Members and, accordingly, the issue was referred to the Third Member for a majority opinion. The Third Member held that the interest paid and interest received from the Tax Authority cannot be set off against each other and the whole of the interest received is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Facts- The taxpayer is a tax resident of Mauritius. BG Exploration & Production India Ltd (BG) is a co-venturer with ONGC Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd, who are party to the production sharing agreement for Panna, Mukta and South Tapti contract areas.
