ITO v Gujarat Information Technology Fund (ITAT Ahemdabad) Interest income earned on bank deposit is exempt u/s 10(23FB) and there is no decision of SEBI that there is any violation of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996 and, therefore, the AO cannot hold that there was such violation. The AO is duty bound to enquire whether the assessee trust is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and has been granted a certificate of registration by SEBI under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 and not beyond that.
Explore the verdict in Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) on reassessment validity and foreign exchange gain dispute. Legal insights here.
Geofin Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Learned counsel for the petitioner Geofin Investment (P) Limited, submits that the tribunal had erred in dismissing the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as the tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2010, had referred to and relied upon decision of another ITAT Bench which had not not been cited at the time of hearing. He submits that the order passed by the tribunal dated 13th October, 2010 under Section 254(1) of the Act, should have been recalled. Hoourable High Court do not find any merit in the said contention. Under Section 254(2), a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified.
Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai)- Hon’ble Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench has held that there is no requirement under the Act that an institution constituted for advancement of any object of general public utility must be registered as a trust. Therefore, in the present case before us, mere because the assessee association is registered as company under sec. 25 of the Companies Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to refuse registration under sec. 12A/12AA of the Act. Thus, this ground of rejection of registration by the Commissioner of Income-tax, is also rejected. The only reason for which the registration was declined was on the ground that the assessee could not produce the certificate from the Charity Commissioner and that reason, as we have noted above, is not legally sustainable. In view of these discussions, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we direct the learned Director to grant registration to the assesse appellant. The assesse succeeds in the appeal.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum Div I) Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Chennai)- The Tribunal has held that the assessee-company has discharged its interest liability and instead of making payment in cash it has issued share capital to the Government as per the G.O. in question. Hence, the provisions of section 41(1)(a) of the Act are not attracted at all. Therefore, the conversion of the payment in the share capital has to be treated as proper discharge of interest payments. This decision is applicable to the facts of this case mutatis mutandis. In view of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that this issue stands allowed in favour of the assessees in all these appeals.
Pune Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue of deductibility of portfolio management fees in computing ‘capital gains’ under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) held that such fees was directly connected to the acquisition and sale of securities and was incurred in the normal course of the investment activity. It was held that the payments would be allowed as a deduction in computation of capital gains under the ITL.
M/s Total Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether penalty paid by a registered broker is not a fine for any infringement of law and hence allowable – Whether admission fee paid by the assessee to stock exchange for acquiring membership is revenue – Whether salary paid to directors can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of services rendered when similar payments have been allowed in subsequent years – Whether payments made to arbitragers and jobbers is covered by 194C and hence the same is not allowable if TDS is not deducted.
M/s. Perfetti India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Considering all the aspects and principle of consistency propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsand vs. ITO reported in 193 ITR 321, we are of the opinion that loss suffered by the assessee on account of exchange rate fluctuation is allowable expenditure in this year also. The assessee may not be able to produce evidence of the utilisation of the capital before the AO but from the orders of the AO in earlier years and in subsequent years impliedly, it is ascertainable that it is used for the working capital which is in a revenue account.
Shanker Raju Vs UoI (Supreme Court) – CAT – Appointment of Member – A person who has completed ten years as a Member of Tribunal is ineligible to be re-appointed as Member even if he has not attained 65 years of age – Plain reading of proviso to sec. 10A makes it clear that the Chairman and Members appointed prior to Amending Act of 2006, on completion of either their term of service or on attainment of 65 years in the case of Chairman or 62 years in the case of Members of the Tribunal, whichever is earlier, may be considered for fresh appointment – Proviso to sec. 10A provides that such fresh appointment could be made only when the criteria prescribed under amended sec. 8 is satisfied and it is further subject to the condition that the total term of office of the Chairman shall not exceed 5 years and that of a Member, ten years.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 383 of 2009, 987 of 2010, 1242 of 2010 and 1247 of 2010) held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has accepted a royalty payment to be at arm’s length, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not disallow the expenditure by applying Section 37 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court further observed under Section 37 of the Act the AO had powers only to examine whether the expenditure claimed has been actually expended and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and not its reasonableness, which lies solely in the domain of the businessman.
