Facts (a) that the appellant had disclosed all material facts and (b) raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income,
Dis-allowance on the ground that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds into tax-free income can not be made where the assessee owes ample interest free funds on the date of investment.
Patni Computer Systems Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – A continuing debit balance per se, in the account of the associated enterprises, does not amount to an international transaction u/s 92B in respect of which ALP adjustments can be made. U/s 92B(1), the apportionment of cost is permissible only where there exists a ‘mutual agreement or arrangement’ between two or more Associated Enterprises for apportionment of cost incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided to any one or more of such Enterprises. The bare allegation that the AE’s had received ‘specific and identifiable benefits’ is not sufficient to justify apportionment.
Statute makes the amended provision Section 80P(4) inserted by Finance Act, 2006 to be effective from 1.4.2007, which therefore clearly indicates that it is applicable from the Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. The said provision clearly mandates that the provisions of Section 80P shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.
Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot)- HUF is a relative inasmuch as HUF is a collective name given to group consisting of individuals, all of whom are relatives under Explanation to Proviso to section 56(2) of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the term individual would include a group of individuals, hence, an HUF would be covered by the term individual.
Madras High Court has stayed the Registration of Lawyers For Service Tax. The Court has passed an order of interim injunction dated 24.06.2011 restraining the Ministry of Finance from compelling the members of the Petitioner from registering themselves with the service tax authorities and collecting service-tax from them until further orders in response to writ petition filed by The Revenue Bar Association, Madras.
Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee acquired rights in plot in exchange of plot owned by his father, then the market value of the land so received on the date of acquisition will be the cost of acquisition of such land.
Indian Railway Finance Corpn Ltd Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Delhi) – Whether the lease equalisation charges which represented the recovery of fair value of leased assets are rightly added to the net income as per the profit and loss account while computing the book profits u/s 115JB – Whether the bond issue charges are revenue in nature – Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets which were in its possession and it cannot be denied merely on the ground that the registration formalities were pending – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
CIT v Volpak Securities Ltd. (Gujrat High Court)- With respect to the portion of penalty, which the CIT [A] confirmed, the same was deleted by the Tribunal observing that the assessee was liable to make payment of Rs. 1,53,000/ on 23rd June 1997 in respect of mark-to-market settlement for which purpose Rs. 1,50,000/ was accepted from Shri Ashok Patel, Director in cash. However, since some funds were available in the books on that date, only Rs. 75,000/ was deposited in the Bank on 23rd June 1997 and the balance, after meeting certain other payments, was returned to the Director.
ITO Vs. Vijay Bharat Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) -Whether the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act , for the payment of freight charges amounting to 1,32,58,651/- made to the lorry owners and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable to such payments. Held, Yes the payments in question were made to lorry/truck owners who merely placed the vehicles at the disposal of the assessee and never involved themselves in the work to be carried out by the assessee for FCI.
