ACIT vs. M/s Triace (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the CIT (A) decided the ground of reopening against the assessee but decided the ground of merits in favour of the assessee, the assessee is entitled, in an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, to urge, under Rule 27 of the I. T. Rules, that the CIT (A) was wrong in deciding the ground of reopening against the assessee.
Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) – The question whether expenditure is on capital or revenue account should be decided from the practical and business view point and in accordance with sound accountancy principles. The three tests applied to decide the nature of expenditure are the tests of enduring benefit, ownership test and the functional test.
Idea Cellular vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) – Where all the material facts were placed before the AO and he raised questions thereon, Explanation 1 to s. 147 has no application. Further, the argument that because there was no discussion in the assessment order, the AO had not applied his mind or expressed an opinion is not acceptable.
CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) – In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; (2) unless a new statute expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed that it deprives a person of an accrued right. On the ther hand, a law which is procedural in nature, and does not affect the rights, is retrospectively applicable;
Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) – (i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not loans or advances is irrelevant.
Imagic Creative (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from an indivisible contract. It may consist of different elements providing for attracting different nature of levy. It was, therefore, difficult to hold that in a case of instant nature, sales tax would be payable on the value of the entire contract, irrespective of the element of service provided. The approach of the assessing authority, thus, appeared to be correct.
ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the AO had accepted in the past that the warehousing charges received by the assessee was business income, he was not justified in reopening the assessment to assess the charges as property income in the absense of any change in the facts and circumstances.
Rupee Finance vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The contention of the assessee that the sales of shares by certain companies are not transfers as they are part of a family arrangement cannot be accepted as the company’s assets are different from the family assets. It is a distinct juristic entity and its assets cannot be mixed up with the assets of a shareholder. The corporate veil cannot be lifted and it cannot be assumed that the assets of the controlled companies are the assets of the family members; The mere fact that the transferor has received less than the market value of the asset does not mean that he can be assessed on the basis of the FMV In the absense of evidence to show that he has received more than the stated consideration.
1. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) – (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application is made and there is compliance of the requirements of Section 245-D that the Commission is bound to entertain the application and allow it. The Commission has then to consider whether the application is invalid under Section 245-D(2C). The Settlement Commission can treat the application as invalid meaning thereby non – est if the Applicant has not made a true and full disclosure and further must disclose how the income has been derived. If on the material it arrives at a conclusion even prima facie that there was no true and full disclosure it has then the right to declare the application as invalid.
Interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of capital assets “not put to use” in the concerned financial year is eligible for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court said that all that was required is that the capital borrowed must be for the purpose of business for which interest was also paid. A bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax department. The department had filed the appeal after the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat High Court had held that the assessee company M/s Core Health Limited was not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1) and (III) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
