I. K. Agencies Pvt Ltd vs. WTO (Calcutta High Court) – The authorities below totally overlooked the fact that initiation of the proceedings for reassessment was vitiated for not giving notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act to the Appellant and the notice issued upon M/s. Abhudey Properties Pvt. Ltd. which was not in existence at that time was insufficient to initiate proceedings against the Appellant who had taken over the liability of M/s. Abhudey Properties Pvt. earlier to the issue of such notice and such fact was also made known to the Revenue.
DIT v Sahu Jain Trust – Exemption under s 11 — A charitable trust, if acquires tenancy right in respect of some immovable property owned by a different person, and thereafter sublets the said tenancy right and in the process earns some income, such income should not be treated to be an income from business as to attract the provisions contained in s 11(4A) — as held by KolHC in DIT v Sahu Jain Trust; ITA No. 38 of 2001, 13 April 2011
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Calcutta High Court)- When the Board of Directors of the assessee had thought it fit to spend on the foreign tour of the accompanying wife of the Managing Director for commercial expediency, the reasons being reflected in its resolution quoted by us, it was not within the province of the Income-tax Authority to disallow such expenditure by sitting over the decision of the Board, in the absence of any specific bar created by the Statute for such expenditure.
Views expressed by smaller bench of a Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan on tax avoidance are binding on the High Courts because it has interpreted the decision of the larger bench in the case of Mcdowell & Company. Accordingly, the transactions was not a colourable transaction.
Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata (Dated: March 04, 2011)- Income Tax – Sections 10(33), 14A, 94(7) – Whether dividend stripping is allowable – Whether a premeditated transaction by virtue of which an assessee earns tax free income and squares off profits with losses is permissible if it is within the four corners of law. – Assessee’s appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. JCIT & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) – Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the sum of Rs.1,43,35,000/- which represents the liability on account of pension on the basis of the resolution of the Board payable to the employee till their death. Whether, the liability on account of pension on the basis of the provisions made should be allowed for the period till the death of the employees or all liabilities should be limited for the period of accounting year relevant to this assessment year.
Calcutta High Court in the case of PILCOM v. CIT , held that if any payment in the nature of guaranteed amount was paid to any non-resident sports association in relation to any match played in India, the provisions of section 194E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would be applicable with respect to deduction of tax at source. Furthermore, the HC has held that the provisions of section 115BBA of the Act which deals with taxability of non-resident sportsmen or sports associations, are independent from the other provisions of the Act and would override the generality of section 9(1) of the Act which deals with the accrual or assessing of income in India.
he Explanation to s.73 creates a fiction that the loss suffered by certain companies from the business of purchase & sale of shares shall be deemed to be speculation loss. The Explanation is not inconsistent with the object of introduction. The CBDT
An unnecessary complication has been created by the interpretation made of section 40 (a) (i) of the Income Tax Act read with section 195 of the Act by both the appellant and the respondents. First of all, a proper meaning has to be ascribed to the expression “chargeable” under the provisions of this Act. Section 195(1) says that, if any interest is paid by a person to a foreign company, which interest is chargeable under the provisions of this Act tax should be deducted at source.
Prudential Assurance Company Limited (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Company’), a sub-account duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) filed a writ petition (Writ petition no.866 of 2010 ) with the Bombay High Court against the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Commissioner). The Commissioner was seeking to revise an assessment order determined on the basis of a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (‘the AAR’) in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (AAR No. 678/2006). The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) after applying the AAR ruling in petitioner’s own case, cannot be regarded erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the tax department. Further, the High Court also observed that as per section 245S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the ruling in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund cannot displace the binding character of the advance ruling rendered between the Petitioner and the tax department.
