Follow Us:

Judiciary

Whether in the case of Government securities, interest accrues on day to day basis or only on the coupon dates?

July 3, 2011 1639 Views 0 comment Print

Indusind Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether interest on government securities will become taxable on the date of coupon date as the assessee receives the right of the interest in the said securities only on the said date and it does not become due on day to day basis. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.

Pre-operative expenses and registration fee paid to SEBI are allowable as intangible asset and assessee can claim depreciation on the same

July 3, 2011 6057 Views 0 comment Print

HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Limited Vs DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Pre-operative expenses and registration fee paid to SEBI are allowable as intangible asset and assessee can claim depreciation on the same and AO cannot question the allowability if same was allowed in the earlier AY.

Whether when the title of the assessee on the impugned land is not clear, income arising from transfer of such land is to be treated as capital gain or income from other sources?

July 3, 2011 2213 Views 0 comment Print

Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- in regard to 14 bighas, the assessee was found to be a trespasser. The law does not recognize the rights of a trespasser. Ordinarily, it is said that the possession is the nine point of ownership. The possessor has got right over the property and his right cannot be challenged by any one except the true owner. Undoubtedly, for some time, the assessee was the possessor of the land and building. But from the facts culled out from the records, it cannot be concluded that the possessory rights of the assessee bear any legal recognition. Unless such rights are protected by law to associate the word ‘right’ with the said type of possession will be a misnomer, since right is a legally protected interest.

For making additions, FIR is contemporaneous evidence and the contents of the same cannot be ignored in the light of self-serving documents

July 3, 2011 2035 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs Mr Sanjeev R Kanwar (ITAT Mumbai) – For making additions, FIR is contemporaneous evidence and the contents of the same cannot be ignored in the light of self-serving documents. Human conduct and human probabilities are to be given weightage over the self generated evidences.

Where no proof of gifts received on surrender of tenancy rights penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(c)

July 3, 2011 1216 Views 0 comment Print

Harish P. Mashruwala v. Asst. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In this case, tax sought to be evaded is very clear as the tax rate applicable is 30% whereas the assessee has paid 20%. The tax sought to be evaded was because of the lower rate of tax paid and not because of any addition to the income and, therefore, provisions of Explanation 1 are not applicable. The penalty is imposable under the main provision and there is no need to refer to any Explanations. As regards the merit of the case, the claim of the assessee that amount paid for receiving the gift was from the cash received on surrender of tenancy right is not supported by any evidence.

The assessee entitled to exemption under s 54F on investment of net consideration from transfer of depreciable asset under Capital Gains Deposit Account Scheme

July 3, 2011 3965 Views 0 comment Print

CIT v Rajiv Shukla (High Court of Delhi) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee under section 54F on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence showing investment in Capital Deposit Account Scheme under section 54F and that the flat sold by him was a depreciable asset. As per provisions of section 50, the capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable asset shall be deemed to be the capital gain arising from transfer of short term capital asset and, therefore, deduction under section 54F was not available. Accordingly, AO made an addition of Rs.91,77,118/- under the head Short Term Capital Gain.

Retrospective or prospective applicability of a provision cannot be decided simply on the basis of the view taken by CBDT ignoring the plain statutory language

July 3, 2011 1680 Views 0 comment Print

iPolicy Network (P) Ltd. v ITO (ITAT, Delhi)- If the difference in the ALP price determined by the TPO in international transaction and the revenue received by the assessee does not exceed the safe harbour of -/+ 5 per cent as per proviso (2) of s 92C (pre-amended) no addition can be made to the income of the assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment.

No Tax on on transfer of shares of Indian subsidiary to Singapore subsidiary without consideration on account of reorganisation by American company

July 3, 2011 3037 Views 0 comment Print

Deere and Co., In re (Authority for Advance Rulings)- American company is not liable to pay any capital gain under s 45 read with s 47(iii) on transfer of shares of Indian subsidiary to Singapore subsidiary without consideration on account of reorganisation as same amounts to gift.

Once the refund becomes due, the interest is payable as per the provisions of section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

July 3, 2011 3233 Views 0 comment Print

ADIT (IT), Circle 2(2) v Taj TV Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) -The assessee was entitled to interest under s 244A in respect of the excess payment of tax in response to the order passed under s 201 read with s 195, 201(1A) and 250.

Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

July 3, 2011 2939 Views 0 comment Print

ADIT v Fidelity Management Trust Co (ITAT Mumbai) The mere making of a claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars when the assessee had made a bona fide claim relying on the advance ruling pronounced in the case of a sister concern which was reversed later on.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031