Kalpesh Ratilal Kalathia v CIT- Following the course of action adopted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, having held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payment was not made in terms of the Scheme, the respondent authority is directed to either refund or adjust the amount of Rs.4,74,584/- already deposited by the assessee in purported compliance of the provisions of the Scheme, in accordance with law.
CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd (Gujarat High Court) – Assessee is fully justified in arranging its affairs in such a manner where his tax liability is reduced provided the assessee does not resort to any illegal means or enter into a sham transaction for the said purpose. It is the prerogative of the assessee to use its own fund in the manner in which it considers proper. The Revenue cannot dictate the assessee that how the assessee should use its own fund. Thus in our considered opinion the A.O.’s approach in the instant case was not justified. The nexus between the interest bearing fund and interest free investment as claimed by the A.O. was not correct when it is not in dispute that the own funds were utilized for making tax free investment.
Merely because the shares had been purchased from borrowed funds obtained on high rate of interest would not change the nature of the transaction from investment to one in the nature of an “adventure in the nature of trade.
In the light of the concurrent findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, it is apparent that the assessee had bona fide made a claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which came to be rectified by filing a revised return withdrawing the claim and that as such there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the notice under section 154 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer also does not remotely indicate anything to that effect. In the circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
Where the so called new unit set up by the assessee was merely an expansion of its existing business and was not setting up of a new business, the expenses incurred in that regard were allowable as revenue expenses.
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (HC) held that the application made by the taxpayer before the DRP seeking its consent to approach the Assessing Officer (AO), requesting him to finalise the draft assessment order passed under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to enable it to file an appeal before the CIT(A), does not tantamount to withdrawal of the DRP application. The HC further held that the case ought to have been considered on merit even in case the DRP was of the opinion that it did not have the requisite powers under the provisions of the Act to entertain the application of the taxpayer.
Explore the Tribunal’s decision on Service Tax exemption (Notification No. 6/05-ST) for an assessee promoting a registered/branded entity. Details on the case and legal considerations.
It was held that clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) cannot be said to be discriminatory and hence unconstitutional. This clause relates to set-off of unabsorbed business loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is lower. The HC also held that the approach of reading down a provision by modifying the language of a statute to achieve the intention of the legislature, cannot apply to such a provision.
In a recent ruling Gujarat High Court (HC) in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (hereinafter referred to as VEG/ Transferor/ Tax Payer) [Company petition no. 183 of 2009] on the issue of whether a scheme of demerger of infrastructure assets between group companies for ‘Nil’ consideration could be sanctioned under the provisions of the Indian Tax law (ITL) and Indian Company law (ICL). The decision of the HC discusses various aspects with regard to the validity of the scheme of demerger u/s 391-394 of the ICL, ITL, Indian Contract Act 1872, laws governing commercial taxes like VAT, Stamp Duty etc. The HC concurred with the objections placed by the Tax Authority and rejected the scheme of demerger which was viewed as an attempt to evade taxes including income-tax, stamp duty, VAT and to defraud the Tax Authority for its legitimate right to recover its dues out of the assets of the Taxpayer and other group companies. The HC also agreed that the assets were being demerged to a paper/conduit company for a subsequent tax neutral transfer to another infrastructure company.
Reopening of tax assessment beyond four years on the basis of a retrospective amendment is not justified, if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary during the original assessment proceedings
