Considering the fact that the entire claim in the instant application is based on the declaration made in the statement of affairs which was on the basis of the realisable value indicated in Ex. R1 and in that regard, if the view taken by this Court in the case of the Official Liquidator, Bangalore Batteries (P.) Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. N.S. Gopal [2010] 103 SCL 164 (Kar.) is noticed, it would be clear that the proceedings under Section 543 cannot be initiated merely based on the realisable value of the assets indicated.
In this judgment HC held that CBDT’s Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 applies to appeal filed before the issue of instruction also and all appeal pending on the date of instruction before High Court in which tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits of Rs. 10 Lakh for filing appeal by Income Tax Department can be held as non Maintainable. High Court has held as follows:-
The levy of interest is on the actual amount, which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax from the due date. The interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly.
CIT vs. DSL DSoftware Ltd (Karnataka High Court) (i) Income Tax department made liable to pay Cost of Rs.1 lac for making the assessee to contest the appeals in three forums and wasting court’s time and tax payers’ money. (ii) Deduction u/s 10B available for the extended period upto 10 years.
If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F of the Act.
Transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyrights would fall within mischief of royalty – In both the cases, it was held that consideration paid by the Indian customers or end-users to the assessee-a foreign supplier, for transfer of the right to use the software/computer programme in respect of the copyrights falls within the mischief of royalty as defined under sub-clause [v] to Explanation 2 to Clause [vi] of section 9[1] of the Income-tax Acts 1961.
CIT v. G.R. Developers Insofar as balconies are concerned, prior to 01.04.2005, the area covered by them has to be excluded in calculating the built-up area. As the housing project was approved on 14.06.2002 and in the said plan, all these balconies are shown and excluding those balconies, the construction put up is admittedly less than 1,500 sq. ft. After 01.04.2005, the authorities cannot add the balcony area to the built up area and deny the benefit to the assessee. Therefore, as the material on record discloses that all the 84 or 83 flats constructed are less than the 1,500 sq. ft., the assessee cannot be denied the benefit and taxed on the ground that it exceeds 1,500 sq. ft. Hence this question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Keeping in mind the fact that obstacles were put in assessees getting the benefit, the Legislature introduced the definition of built-up area in sub-section (14)(a) of section 80-IB. From a reading of the definition of built-up area, the intention is clear. In calculating the built-up area it is only the inner measurements of the residential unit on the floor level, which has to be taken into consideration. If there are any projections and balconies and if it exclusively belongs to the residential units, then that also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the built-up area.
Prakash Leasing Ltd. v. DCIT – The lease rentals is not the real income of the assessee. The lease rental consists of financing charge as well as capital recovery. The amount received towards capital recovery constitute the capital expenditure, whereas the financing charge represents the revenue receipt, which is the real income. It is as per the Accounting Standards prescribed by the ICAI. Therefore, the assessee under the Act has to offer to tax only the real income and not the total receipt. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act on the capital recovery.
Merely because the vehicles were used by the lessees in their business, the assessee cannot be denied the depreciation @ 40%. In fact, it is not in dispute that in respect of all these vehicles, the assessee has acknowledged the receipt of lease rent and has shown the same in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he is claiming depreciation. If the authorities were of the view that the assessee has failed to prove his ownership over those vehicles, then, if depreciation is to be disallowed then they also should not have taken that lease rental agreement for the purpose of making the assessment. Under these circumstances, it is also not in dispute that for the subsequent years, the assessee had been granted the benefit of depreciation. Therefore, the order to be passed by the authorities should be consistent.
