Mumbai ITAT has held in an important case namely Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) that relief u/s 54EC shall be available even if the bonds are issued after the requisite period of 6 months for investment, if the cheque is issued within the period of 6 months but cheque is encashed after the requisite period and bonds are also issued after the requisite period of 6 months.
“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to accept the claim of Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain on profit arriving from purchase & sale of shares instead of business income treated by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that the assessee is dealing in large volume of shares, most of the shares are bought and sold within short period, while some are not sold due to market conditions and their holding with assessee remains beyond few days, it will not change the nature of transactions and the assessee is very well engaged in the business of share trading, which denote that the motive of the assessee is to carry on business in shares to book profit rather than investment in shares.”
Though currently dividend income is exempt, the above decision lays down a principle that brought forward business loss can be set off against other sources of income which are in the nature of business income, though chargeable to tax under another head of income. Similar position has also been affirmed by the Mumbai Tribunal2 wherein it was held that brought forward business losses can be set off against the capital gains arising from a business or profession, though chargeable to tax under any other head of income.
under the DTAA agreement, the receipt of bare boat rentals i.e. rent for use of or payment for use of equipment is not brought to tax as royalty consequent to the amendment. Thus though under domestic law, the charging section treats the receipts as royalty, under the treaty, royalty cannot be brought to tax in view of the amendments.(Para 18)
The powers under section 254 (2) can only be exercised when it is found that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal and the mistake is such that no two views are possible on the same. The powers under section 254(2) cannot be exercised for reviewing a considered and conscious decision on the grounds which are inherently subjective and capable of debate and discussion on adoption of one view or the other.
Valentine Maritime (Gulf) LLC v. ADIT (Int’l Taxation)- The word `connected’ is not defined anywhere in the India-UAE Tax Treaty but, contextual meaning of that term would include connection in terms of the nature of work carried out; the connection would not arise only because these are carried out at the nearby geographical location or for the same person, but there has to be something in the nature of work that must be connected.
When an explanation is offered, the onus stands shifted on to the Revenue whereby it has to be shown that the explanation offered by the assessee is false or assessee has not been able to substantiate his explanation and failed to prove that such explanation is bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have not been disclosed.
In order to apply the provisions of section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee; the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.
The fact that the Agent has deducted tax under section 195 will not be a bar to proceed and pass an order under section 163 against the agent
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Arif Akhatar Husssain (ITA No. 541/Mum/2010) held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is applicable to the capital gains arising on transfer of Development Rights by the taxpayer.
