A gift of immovable property made by a Muslim is valid even if it is not registered under the Transfer of Property Act or the Stamps and Registration Act, the Supreme Court today ruled. The apex court said though the TP Act mandates registration of a gift, the same would not apply to a Muslim donor as the community has been exempted from the provision.
CIT v Steinle Machine Fabric India – The Circular is specific that in group cases also, each single case must be taken up individually to decide the monetary limits. It appears that these instructions were issued to avoid unnecessary litigation and also litigation where the tax effect was much less and it waste time and money recovering small amounts but we hasten to add that dismissal of such appeals on the ground that the tax effect is low does not mean that we have given any decision on merits nor have we decided such questions of law. These questions can be decided in appropriate proceedings where the tax effect is more than the limit prescribed in the circular.
Supreme Court restricts cultivation of cash crops like areca nut, coconut, cashew, and black pepper in Karnataka’s reserved forests. Lease cancellations justified.
AAR in the case Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company held that capital gains provisions are not attracted in case of transfer of shares without consideration. Further, the AAR held that the transfer pricing provisions in an international transaction can be applied only when income is chargeable to tax in India and since in the present case no income was chargeable to tax in India the question of applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions and withholding tax under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) does not arise.
DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd. The taxpayer was a housing finance company. The taxpayer had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act (ITA) in respect of securitization income earned from the business of long term housing finance. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction to the taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer had received the proceeds on loan securitization and not the interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the taxpayer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the AO preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
The taxpayer was engaged in share trading. During the assessment year 2004-05, the taxpayer had set off the indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer did not allow the set off of indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. Vipul A. Shah v. ACIT (ITA No 3190/Mum/2010) Mumbai ITAT dated 8 April 2011
There is no justification on the part of the revenue in retaining the amount of interest earned on the seized amount especially, on the touchstone of the doctrine of accretion.
Provision under which the penalty was levied by the original adjudicating officer permits benefit of reduction in the penalty; subject to party paying the entire amount of tax determined interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the communication of the order. As provision appears to be pari materia to Section 11AC and the order of Gujarat High Court in the case of Akash Fashion Prints (P) Ltd. followed by the Tribunal, in case of provision of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, there is no infirmity in view adopted by the Tribunal. Revenue Appeal dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai in the case of Manali Investments v. ACIT held that the short term capital gains arising from the transfer of depreciable assets held for more than 36 months under Section 50(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) can be set-off against the brought forward long term capital losses under Section 74 of the Act.
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.Vs.THE CHAIRMAN, ESI CORPORATION & ORS (DELHI HIGH COURT) -The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order FAO 124/2002 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No.19/99, whereby it was held that the appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act.
