ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bajaj Auto Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- From the language of section 205 of the Act, it is clear that the bar operates as soon as it is established that the tax has been deducted at source and it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the tax deducted at source is paid to the credit of the Central Government of not and whether the TDS certificate in Form No. 16 has been issued or not. Also the mere fact that the employer may not issue the TDS certificate to the employee does not mean that the liability of the employer ceases. The liability to pay income-tax if deducted at source is upon the employer.
Ahuja Platinum Properties Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The availability of interest free funds as given in the earlier part of this order is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the assumption that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the interest free funds available with the assessee and interest free loans given to the sister concern. In this regard we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had an occasion to examine the question with regard to disallowance of interest, where the assessee is in possession of both interest free funds as well as borrowed funds on which interest was paid by the assessee.
ACIT Vs M/s Aftek Infosys Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee’ s business is that of computer software services and products development. In order to supply software to its customers as per their requirements, the assessee has necessarily to incur certain expenses which go in making the product customised. When the sale proceeds are considered as revenue receipt, there is no reason for taking such expenses as not revenue because of the fact that there is no enduring benefit to the assessee by incurring such expenses.
CIT Vs Savita N. Mandhana (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the assessee has already included entire consideration for sale of shares, including what could be attributed to non compete obligations, as capital gains. In this view of the matter, the exercise of bifurcation between consideration attributable to sale of shares and for non compete obligations is rendered academic and infructuous.
Ramesh D. Tainwala (ITAT Mumbai)- For proviso(i) to Sec.28(va)(a) to apply there must be transfer of the right to carry on any business. The Assessee in the present case was not carrying on any business on his own but was the promoter and director of the company whose shares were purchased by the Acquirer
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs.22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital – the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T.Act.
Shri Homi K. Bhabha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Ordinarily neither the assessee nor the Revenue can be allowed to re argue the same issue over and over again, when it has already been decided by a coordinate bench of the tribunal.
ADIT (International Taxation)-3(1) Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue in this appeals is with reference to the capital gains arising to various persons of Indian origin or non-resident Indians residing in UAE, who are clients of the Bank. These clients have invested in Government of India T-Bills, which has a tenure of 364 days. The T-Bills are also transferable before maturity. The clients purchased and sold these T-Bills during the year for which Bank, according to the guidelines of the RBI has opened a second subsidiary general ledger in their own name on behalf of their constituents/investors as required by the guidelines.
DCIT v. Bank of America NT & SA (ITAT Mumbai) – Tribunal held that interest received on income tax refund can be set-off against the interest paid on delayed payment of income tax and only net amount is to be taxed. The issue before the tribunal was that Whether interest income received by the taxpayer on income tax refund can be set-off against delayed payment on income tax? Whether the taxpayer can offer the net interest received as income?
The Tata Power Company Limited Vs ACIT- The Tribunal reiterated that the incidence of liability to pay DDT arises the moment such dividend is distributed (declared) and any subsequent events can have no bearing on such liability, even if such event renders dividend non-taxable in the hands of the recipient. It was not possible to extend the same analogy laid down by the cases cited pertaining to tax-ability of dividend in the hands of shareholder to a case of refund of DDT already paid by the Company declaring dividend.
