DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sumer Ville Investments (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the notional interest on interest-free deposit from tenants is to be considered while determining the correct ALV u/s 23(1)(a)
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
M.L. Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The notification issued by the CBDT at Serial No. 8, mentions “human resource services” as a notified service eligible for deduction u/s 10A. It was also observed that the Assessee is just processing the potentiality of candidates employable by any software development company and the customised data is prepared for the US Company.
Anil Batra Vs CCIT (Delhi High Court)- Whether when assessee has already been convicted for two AYs and the complaint filed for the third year u/s 276B, any revision of the compounding guidelines and an intimation to the assessee in this regard would mean that compounding is allowable even after the complaint is filed?
These three appeals being ITA No. 310/09, 1115/10 and 358/11 are preferred against the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟ for short) dated 22/08/08, 17/06/2009 and 16/07/2010 relating to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007- 08 respectively.
Teracom Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the term “begins to manufacture or produce articles or things” has been interpreted to mean the manufacture or production for the purpose of commerce and not for the purpose of testing.
CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (Karnataka High Court)- The High Court had to consider two issues for AY 2001-02 & onwards: whether (i) the loss incurred by a non-eligible unit & (ii) the brought forward unabsorbed loss & unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit has to be set-off against the profits of the eligible unit before allowing deduction u/s 10A/ 10B.
ACIT Vs S.K.M. Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Land which forms part of investment in balance sheets is capital asset and hence profit derived from it is taxable under the head capital gain. Mere presence of profit motive not enough to decide the head of income.
In the instant case, the respondent-company failed to file Form No. 8 with the concerned RoC. Therefore, the RoC, is directed to exercise his powers under section 234(1) by calling information with regard to filing of Form No. 8 and direct the respondent-company to make good the default in non-filing of e-form No. 8 under section 125. In case the respondent-company fails to comply with the order, the RoC may take appropriate action against the respondent-company in accordance with law.
Section 65(39a) was amended by substituting vide Section 88 of the Finance Act, 2005, which is reproduced below. (39a)’erection, commissioning or installation’ means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency, in relation to:- (i) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment; or (ii) installation of– (a) electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings therefore; or (b) plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids; or
