Wallfort Shares & stock Brokers Ltd v ITO Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as a genuine loss,
Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.
ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)- Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified,
ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (i) The exchange rate gain difference pertaining to exports is an integral part of the exports and export turnover and cannot be treated as income from other sources. (ii) However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deduction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.
ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee had converted stock-in-trade into investments at their book value and later sold them and offered to tax the difference between the indexed book value and the sale proceeds as capital gains and the AO took the view that the difference between the book value and the FMV on the date of conversion had to be assessed as business income, Held:
Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available,
Mahendra D. Jain vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result of infraction of the law is not allowable.
SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee had a ‘Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment’ (‘DAPE’) (“SET India”) in India and it was admitted by the Revenue that the assessee had paid ‘arms length’ remuneration to the said dependent agent but the Tribunal still held (106 ITD 75) that notwithstanding the taxability of the said dependent agent in accordance with domestic law, the assessee had to be assessed in respect of the profits attributable to the said DAPE, held, reversing the judgment of the Tribunal that
ITO vs. Lotia Co.op Hsg. Soc. (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee was a co.op society and it and its members entered into a development agreement with a builder pursuant to which Tranferable Development Rights (TDR) entitled to be received under the Development Control Regulations was assigned to the developer for the repairs and redevelopment of the building and the construction of additional floors, held that the TDRs were owned by the flat owners individually and as no consideration for the transfer of the TDRs was received by the assessee society nor any area in the constructed portion was allocated to the assessee society, it was not chargeable to tax.
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
