The dispute in this case relates to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. On 30 April 2001, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the purchase and sale of shares by the petitioner was in the ordinary course of its business and the income which resulted from this
The Bombay High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to reconsider the applications of Bollywood actor Danny Denzongpa alias Tshering Pintso for tax exemptions on dividends and interests since 1997-98 under section 10(26AAA) as incorporated in the Finance Act, which entitled tax exemptions to Sikkimese nationals on dividends and interest on securities. A division bench of the high court has set aside the order passed by the income-tax commissioner rejecting nine applications filed by Denzongpa seeking the exemptions as per the amendment to the Finance Act in 2008.
In this judgement, after hearing the matter, vide its order dated 8 September, 2010 running into 196 pages, the HC has dismissed the writ petition filed by VIH, holding that the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities under section 201 of the Act cannot be held to lack jurisdiction.
The assessee, a co-op bank, filed a return for AY 2001-02 showing a loss of Rs. 15.94 crores. As the return was belated, the assessee filed an application u/s 119(2)(b) with the CBDT requesting condonation of delay and for being allowed carry forward of loss. The principal ground on which condonation was sought was that there was a delay in appointment of the statutory auditor by the Registrar and a consequent delay in preparing the s. 44AB tax audit report. The CBDT rejected the application on the ground that the reasons were general in nature and there were no exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the assessee to file the return. It was also stated that the assessee was operating for several years and was aware of its obligation to get the accounts audited and to file the return within the due date. The assessee challenged the rejection of the application. HELD upholding the challenge: (i) The power to appoint statutory auditors is that of the Central Registrar and that was done on 3.9.2001. The Registrar appointed Chartered Accountants to be statutory auditors in place of the Departmental Auditors. This change was made in respect of all societies. Therefore, the assessee cannot be blamed for the delay in carrying out its audit as the same was beyond its control. The contention of the Revenue that the departmental auditors had started the audit in the year 2000 and it was for the assessee to get the audit expedited cannot be accepted. Though the departmental auditors might have started the audit, it appears that pursuant to the said policy decision that was taken, the departmental auditors were replaced by the Chartered Accountants to be the statutory auditors. Therefore, the reason given for delay deserves to be accepted; (ii) It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
The High Court held that notice issued for reopening the assessment which could be rectified under section 154 is invalid.
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 81 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court held that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organization would not be income which would be assessable to tax.
Credit for brought forward MAT is to be given from gross demand before charging interest u/s 234B. 2. Interest u/s 244A was allowable on the refundable taxes arrived at after giving credit of brought forward MAT from the gross demand.
What the proviso to Section 112 essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of income arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds 10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond 10% is liable to be ignored.
