Swatanter Kumar J.- Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II New Delhi, while preferring an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 1, 1999, relating to the assessing year 1996-97, raised the following issue
Whether, only because the assessee can deal in shares as per the memorandum of objects, any transactions undertaken by the assessee for sale or purchase of shares, in the earlier years is to be treated as business transaction, and the gains and loss resulting from the same to be assessed under the head business income and not capital gains.
Delhi High Court rules on penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) in CIT Vs Nalwa Sons. Case involves tax assessment, book profits, and disallowed deductions. Read more.
ITAT was right in law and on merits by deleting the additions of income made as interest earned/acquired on the loan advanced to M/s Shaw Wallace by considering the interest as doubtful and unrealizable.
Once the three conditions pointed out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to deductions in respect of the interest and charges paid on the loans; the matter would be different only in a case where after borrowing the funds from the bank, the assessee utilizes those very funds by giving interest free loans to others.
The department filed an appeal in the High Court and claimed that as the Tribunal’s order was received on a particular date, the appeal was on time. However, the assessee obtained information from the Tribunal under the Right to Information Act and pointed out that the order was served on an earlier date and that the appeal was belated. HELD taking a serious view of the matter and summoning the Revenue Secretary and Chairman CBDT.
In a recent decision in the case of Tecumseh India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010-TIOL-408-ITAT-DEL-SE3], the Special Bench of Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) has held that non-compete fees inextricably linked with the acquisition of a business constitute capital expenditure.
The assessee-company allotted shares to four companies. The allottee companies were active as per the records of the ROC and were allotted PAN and assessed to income-tax. Though the assessee filed a return, no assessment u/s 143(3) was made. The AO s
The assessee let out property on a rent of Rs. 90,000 per month and also received interest-free security deposit of Rs. 8.58 crores. The property was not subject to the Rent Control Act. The assessee claimed that only the rent could be taken into account for determining the ‘annual value’ of the property and not the notional interest on the deposit. The AO determined the ‘annual value’ u/s 23(1)(a) by adding Rs. 30 lakhs of notional interest. The CIT (A) and Tribunal deleted the addition by holding that the rateable value as determined by the MCD had to be taken as the “fair rent” u/s 23(1) (a) and the notional interest could not be added either u/s 23(1)(a) or u/s 23(1)(b). On appeal by the department HELD:
Pearey Lal Bhawan Association Vs M/S Satya Developers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Service Tax: whether the burden of service tax, levied on the service or facility of leasing (of the suit premises) should be borne by the lessor (i.e. the service provider) or the lessee (i.e. the defendant, user). – that unless a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, in case of the imposition or increase in the tax after the making of a contract, the party shall be entitled to be paid such tax or such increase. Although there is no explicit provision to that effect, enabling lessors such as the plaintiff, to the service tax component, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient internal indication in the Act, through Section 83 read with Section 12-A and Section 12-B suggesting that the levy is an indirect tax, which can be collected from the user (in this case, the lessee). This issue, is therefore, answered in the plaintiff’s favour, and against the defendant.
