DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- if adjustments had to be made to the closing stock, in the same token value of purchase/sale of goods and inventory had to be further adjusted to include the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. and even opening stock has to be recomputed in terms of section 145A of the Act, in which event there is no change in the end result and no case was made out by the Assessing Officer to make an addition. Even u/s. 43B of the Act so long as taxes were paid before the due date of filing of return of income addition cannot be made.
Convergys India Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, we note that gain is not on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange relating to assessee’s export activities. The same is with respect to the external commercial borrowings. This cannot be termed as derived from the export activity of the assessee. The assessee’s reliance in this regard on section 10A(4) does not come to its rescue, as the said sub-section only provides the formula for computing profits derived from the export activity. First, the income or gain has to be derived from export activity, only then the computation formula can be applied.
Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited v CIT (ITAT Amritsar)- DEPB is an incentive. It is given under Duty Exemption Remission Scheme. Essentially, it is an export incentive. No doubt, the object behind DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product. This neutralization is provided for by credit to customs duty against export product. Under DEPB, an exporter may apply for credit as percentage of FOB value of exports made in freely convertible currency. Credit is available only against the export product and at rates specified by DGFT for import of raw materials, components etc..
Merck Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of sec. 94 are very much clear and it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the provisions and therefore, appellant should not have claimed the aforesaid loss knowing fully well that the provisions of sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions. Appellant has adjusted the aforesaid loss against the profit on sale of short term capital gains which is illegal. Appellant being a reputed company, advised by reputed and learned counsels for the past many years cannot be said to be not aware of the said provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, appellant’s submissions on this issue are rejected and it is held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
ITO v Gujarat Information Technology Fund (ITAT Ahemdabad) Interest income earned on bank deposit is exempt u/s 10(23FB) and there is no decision of SEBI that there is any violation of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996 and, therefore, the AO cannot hold that there was such violation. The AO is duty bound to enquire whether the assessee trust is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and has been granted a certificate of registration by SEBI under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 and not beyond that.
Explore the verdict in Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) on reassessment validity and foreign exchange gain dispute. Legal insights here.
Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai)- Hon’ble Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench has held that there is no requirement under the Act that an institution constituted for advancement of any object of general public utility must be registered as a trust. Therefore, in the present case before us, mere because the assessee association is registered as company under sec. 25 of the Companies Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to refuse registration under sec. 12A/12AA of the Act. Thus, this ground of rejection of registration by the Commissioner of Income-tax, is also rejected. The only reason for which the registration was declined was on the ground that the assessee could not produce the certificate from the Charity Commissioner and that reason, as we have noted above, is not legally sustainable. In view of these discussions, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we direct the learned Director to grant registration to the assesse appellant. The assesse succeeds in the appeal.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum Div I) Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Chennai)- The Tribunal has held that the assessee-company has discharged its interest liability and instead of making payment in cash it has issued share capital to the Government as per the G.O. in question. Hence, the provisions of section 41(1)(a) of the Act are not attracted at all. Therefore, the conversion of the payment in the share capital has to be treated as proper discharge of interest payments. This decision is applicable to the facts of this case mutatis mutandis. In view of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that this issue stands allowed in favour of the assessees in all these appeals.
Pune Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue of deductibility of portfolio management fees in computing ‘capital gains’ under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) held that such fees was directly connected to the acquisition and sale of securities and was incurred in the normal course of the investment activity. It was held that the payments would be allowed as a deduction in computation of capital gains under the ITL.
M/s Total Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether penalty paid by a registered broker is not a fine for any infringement of law and hence allowable – Whether admission fee paid by the assessee to stock exchange for acquiring membership is revenue – Whether salary paid to directors can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of services rendered when similar payments have been allowed in subsequent years – Whether payments made to arbitragers and jobbers is covered by 194C and hence the same is not allowable if TDS is not deducted.
