Follow Us:

Judiciary

Foreign travel expenditure on Pleasure Trip not allowable

October 5, 2012 1429 Views 0 comment Print

The main issue is with regard to allowability of foreign travel expenditure. The assessee claimed foreign travel expenditure at Rs. 20,35,971. As the assessee not furnished details of expenditure relating to business and pleasure trips, the Assessing Officer disallowed 80% of foreign travel expenses at Rs. 16,28,777. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow 1/3rd of the expenditure instead of 1/5th of the expenditure. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us.

Addition for Investment in Shares / Mutual Fund based on mere AIR report not sustainable

October 5, 2012 1671 Views 0 comment Print

Tribunal had taken the view that when the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments.

Mere certain lapses & disallowances cannot be basis for denying exemption u/s.10(23C)

October 5, 2012 858 Views 0 comment Print

Regarding allowability of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi), we are of the opinion that there is no allegation that the assessee is not imparting education. The argument of the Department is that some benefit given to the founder member of the trust disables the trust from getting exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi).

Loss due to Recession in Software Industry after 9/11 incident cannot be ignored in computing ALP

October 5, 2012 1303 Views 0 comment Print

The learned DR strongly defending the order passed by the CIT (A) submitted that the assessee has deliberately made excess payment to its AE with an intention to reduce its profit. The learned DR submitted that the CIT (A) after considering all aspects has correctly determined the ALP.

S. 14A Expenses incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of ‘business profits’ cannot be allowed as deduction

October 5, 2012 1583 Views 0 comment Print

Learned AR argued that tax free securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and hence the provisions of section 14A cannot apply to disallow any expenditure notwithstanding the fact that the interest income is exempt.

Whether benefit u/s. 72A could be granting by BIFR while granting scheme of amalgamation

October 5, 2012 1971 Views 0 comment Print

Under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, to give to the amalgamated company the benefit of the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, the Central Government must, upon the recommendation of the specified authority, be satisfied that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before the amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors, and that the amalgamation was in the public interest.

S. 10A Exemption for subsequent year cannot be withdrawn, unless deduction for 1st year is withdrawn

October 5, 2012 2199 Views 0 comment Print

Where a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years.

Prior to 01.06.2007 rent of duty-free shop in airport not taxable under Airport Services

October 5, 2012 723 Views 0 comment Print

AAI had let out/given on licence or lease certain premises to the petitioners therein for the purpose of running a counter or for parking and the Service Tax Department, invoking Section 65 (105) (zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 was claiming service tax on the rental/licence fee which was being paid by the petitioners therein to the AAI. It was the contention of the petitioners therein that Section 65 (105) (zzm) does not entail renting out of immovable property and the same does not constitute a taxable service and is not exigible to service tax. Reliance was placed on clarification issued by Central Board of Custom and Excise vide Circular No.80/10/2004-S.T., dated 17.9.2004.

CIT vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust (P&H High Court)

October 5, 2012 3014 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust (P&H HC) – Section 10(23C) of the Act are the provisions of the Act in substitution of the earlier provisions of Section 10(22) of the Act as to which income shall not be included in computing the total income of any person. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 11, 12 or Section 10(23C) of the Act, deal with the income of a Trust or of the Institution and the circumstances as to when such income is to be excluded for computing the total income, but the basis of such benefit is the registration under Section 12AA of the Act.

Interest earned on deposits out of non-SLR funds is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)

October 4, 2012 801 Views 0 comment Print

There can be no dispute with the proposition that the word ‘attributable’ is much wider in scope than ‘derived’. The Legislature has used the words ‘attributable to’ in conjunction with the phrase ‘anyone or more of such activities’. The investment of the funds by the banks including the non-reserves was part of the banking activities since no bank would like its reserve funds to remain idle and not earn any interest.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930