Pooja Bhatt v. DCIT Income derived by the assessee-artist from the exercise of her activity in Canada is taxable only in source country i.e., Canada as per the scheme of taxation contained in the Indo-Canada Treaty; by using the expression “may be taxed in the other State” in Article 18(1) of the said Treaty, the contracting parties permitted only the other State i.e. State of income source and by implication, the State of residence was precluded from taxing such income.
Sunil Sethi v. DCIT- Where there was documentary evidence on record to substantiate the explanation of the assessee that the amount was given for the business purposes of the company, the same could not be considered to be deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable.
CIT vs. Raval Tiles (Bombay High Court) Where the Tribunal did not pass an order on the appeal despite considerable delay and instead fixed the matter repeatedly for ‘clarifications’ and thereafter closed the matter for orders on the basis of written submissions and without hearing the assessee, HELD the procedure followed by the Tribunal was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
M/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI)] The words in relation to in s. 14A mean a dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure and the exempt income. To determine whether there is such a connection, one has to see the object with which the expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is incurred mainly to earn taxable income and the tax-free income is incidental, there is no such connection and s. 14A does not apply. The onus is on the AO to establish that there is a dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure and the exempt income;
CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings (Supreme Court) – Income Tax – Penalty – law permits the contracting parties to lawfully change their stipulations – What is material in the tax jurisprudence is the evasion of tax, not the beneficial lawful adjustment therefor . In the commercial world, the parties are always free to vary the terms of contract and, therefore, the assessee and the vendee had no legal impediment in modifying the terms of their contract. Merely because by Resolution the assessee agreed to defer the payment of interest, would not mean that it tried to evade tax.
Easy to Calculate and Understand. Specify the Circumstances when we can Claim Benefit of HRA as well as Interest on Housing Loan.Specify the Procedure for Valuation of Properties, Calculation of Gross Maintainable Rent (GMR) & Calculation of Net Maintainable Rent (NMR).
CIT v. Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd. . We agree with the High Court’s finding that the law permits the contracting parties to lawfully change their stipulations by mutual agreement and, therefore, the assessee and the vendee had no legal impediment in modifying the terms of their contract. We also agree with the further finding of the High Court that the Resolution could not be given any retrospective effect so as to facilitate evasion of tax liability that had already arisen for the Assessment Year 1979-80. We further agree with the High Court’s finding that it being a valid stipulation, changed the mode of payment from the date of the Resolution and, therefore, under the changed mode of payment adopted under the Resolution dt. 30.6.1978, no interest was to accrue during the Accounting period from 1.7.1978 up to 30.6.1979 and, therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal on that count appeared to be correct as regards the Assessment Year 1980-81 is concerned.
In this regard paragraph (25) of Circular No. 14 of 2001, is relevant. The aforesaid Circular No.14 provides Explanatory Notes on the provisions of Finance Act, 2001, relating to direct taxes, which is printed in 252 I.T.R. (St) 65. Paragraph (25) of the aforesaid Circular is to be found on page 86 thereof. For the sake of ready reference, the aforesaid paragraph (25) is reproduced as follows:
In a crucial judgment on the scope of penalty provisions in tax and other civil liability laws, the Supreme Court has significantly broadened their scope (Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, CA Nos. 10289 – 10303 of 2003, decided on September 29, 2008, per Pasayat J.). The judgment of the three-judge Bench on a reference from a Division Bench overrules the important decision in Dilip Shroff v. JCIT. The following is an argument that it has done so unsatisfactorily.
Hawkins Cookers vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – when the adjustments are made in the valuation of inventories, this will affect both the opening as well as closing stock. Whatever adjustment is made in the valuation of closing stock, the same will be reflected in the opening stock also irrespective of any consequences on the computation of income for tax purposes. The Tribunal further noticed that Section 145A starts with the non-obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145”.
