By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of CIT(A)’s order dated 29th March 2010, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2 004-05, mainly on the following ground:
Assessee has been following cash system of accounting and this method has been regularly employed by the assessee in recording its day today business transaction. It is not a case where the assessee has been maintaining its accounts of day to day business under the mercantile system of accounting and thereafter prepares accounts in accordance with cash system of accounting for income tax purposes. The AO has placed strong reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Amarpali Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
DCIT Vs BP India Services Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Decisive factors for determining inclusion or exclusion of any case in/from the list of comparables are the specific characteristics of services provided , assets employed, risks assumed, the contractual terms and conditions prevailing including the geographical location and size of the markets, costs of labour and capital in the markets etc. Nowhere, the higher or lower profit rate, as presumed by the ld. CIT(A), has been prescribed as the determinative factor to make a case incomparable. Rightly so, because profit is not a factor in itself, but consequence of the effect of various factors. Only if the higher or lower profit rate results on account of the effect of factors given in rule 10B(2) read with sub-rule (3), that such case shall merit omission. If however such extreme profit rate is achieved because of factors other than those given in the rule, then such case would continue to find its place in the list of comparables.
ICAI & ANR. Vs DGIT (EXEMPTIONS) (Delhi High Court)- Even if the profits earned are used for charitable purposes, but fee, cess or consideration is charged by a person for carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering of any service in addition to any trade, commerce or business, an institution will not be regarded as established for charitable purpose/activity (it would be covered under the proviso and the bar/prohibition will apply)
SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC held that under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (‘Registration Act’) an arbitration clause can remain enforceable in certain situations even if it forms part of an unregistered (but compulsorily registrable) document. But the agreement including the arbitration clause will not be admissible as evidence in court prior to payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’).
Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Service Tax on renting of immovable property with retrospective effect While upholding the levy of Service Tax on Renting, their Lordship has left open the question of imposition of penalty for period prior to 2010 to be examined by the Govt. in view of the fact […]
The Court held that an order sanctioning a scheme under section 394 of the Companies Act falls within the description of the words ‘instrument’ and `conveyance’ within the meaning of the West Bengal Stamp Act, 1964. Accordingly, it is subject to stamp duty. The Court also observed that no property transferred pursuant to any scheme in the State of West Bengal would be effective unless appropriate stamp duty is paid. This ruling may be relevant in the States which do not have a specific clause for merger/demerger under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the conveyance entry in the Stamp duty schedule.
Dredging International NV vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) – DRP cannot issue any directions which are at variance from the proposed draft order. Further, any provision made towards foreseeable losses is an allowable expenditure. The arguments are that the assessee has already shown the revenue receipt, i.e. work-in-progress at Rs. 19,83,63,908/- which was more than the contract receipts determined by the DRP at Rs.13,12,94,847/- and so the question of estimating revenue on the amount as directed by the DRP does not arise as contested in ground No. 3. Further, since assessee claimed the future loss of Rs.32,86,17,293/- and this future loss was proposed to be disallowed by the A.O. in the draft assessment order, the DRP cannot direct the A.O. to estimate the profit on 20% of the contract at 8%, which is at variance with the proposed draft order.
CIT Vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Assessee’s AO cannot question Creditor’s Income Tax Return instead he should inquire with creditor’s AO
In a case of bounced cheque, the Delhi high court has ruled that the magistrate in the place where the cheque was drawn and where the drawee bank is situated has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The power under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not with the magistrate where the cheque was presented or from where the notice was issued to the offending party. Shree Raj issued some 45 cheques drawn on State Bank of India in Mumbai to Destination of the World in New Delhi. When the payee company presented them to ICICI Bank in Delhi, they were dishonoured by bank for want of funds.
