Whether the waiver of a loan is taxable as income or not depends on the purpose for which the loan was taken. If the loan was taken for acquiring a capital asset, the waiver thereof would not amount to any income exigible to tax u/s 28(iv) or 41(1). On the other hand, if the loan was taken for a trading purpose and was treated as such from the very beginning in the books of account, its waiver would result in income more so when it was transferred to the P&L A/c in view of Sundaram Iyengar 222 ITR 344 (SC).
Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows credit for Federal & State taxes, the DTAA allows credit only for Federal taxes. The result is that the Section 91 is more beneficial to the assessee & by virtue of Section 90(2) it must prevail over the DTAA. Though Section 91 applies only to a case where there is no DTAA, a literal interpretation will result in a situation where an assessee will be worse off as a result of the provisions of the DTAA which is not permissible under the Act. Section 91 must consequently be treated as general in application and must prevail where the DTAA is not more beneficial to the assessee. Accordingly, even an assessee covered by the scope of the DTAA will be eligible for credit of State taxes u/s 91 despite the DTAA not providing for the same.
Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani Vs. ACIT – Article 26(2) means that taxation of a PE of a USA resident shall not be less favorable than the taxation of a resident enterprise carrying on the same activities. The result is that the exemptions and deductions available to Indian enterprises would also be granted to the US enterprises if they are carrying on the same activities. As the assessee was carrying on the “same activities” of export of software as done by residents, it was entitled to s. 80HHE deduction as admissible to a resident assessee.
The respondent raised certain claims against the appellant and invoked the arbitration agreement — the appointed Arbitrator adjusted Rs.11,10,662 awarded to the appellant, towards the sum of Rs.91,33,844 awarded in favour of the respondent and consequently directed the appellant to pay to the respondent, the balance of Rs.80,23,182 — the appellant paid the said amount to the respondent and filed a petition under section 11 of the Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator to decide its claim for the extra cost in getting the work completed through the alternative agency — the High Court dismissed the said application and held that the application under section 11 of the Act by the appellant was misconceived, barred by res judicata, and mala fide — appeal —
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — provisions of — whether applicable — execution of an agreement in regard to maintenance of water supply and electrical works in different parts of Gwalior Municipal Corporation area — a work order was issued to the appellant by the respondent — bills were not paid — the designate of the Chief Justice appointed an independent arbitrator — the arbitrator made award however, the High Court set aside the orders holding that the arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator was without jurisdiction as the dispute raised by the appellant could only be decided by the statutory arbitral tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam and therefore the sole arbitrator appointed by the designate of Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Act lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide the disputes
The argument that if income is assessed by estimation on GP rate, no other disallowance can be made is not of universal application. If expenditure which is legally not permissible has been taken into account that can certainly be disallowed even where income is estimated. Though the provisions of block assessment are special, the argument that they are a complete Code and the other provisions cannot apply is not acceptable. Section 40A(3) of the Income tax Act applies to block proceedings
The Delhi high court last week held that the clause in a tender document for building contract permitting 5 per cent bid security amount to be forfeited in case of a non-responsive bid is “clearly penal in nature and thus provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act would apply.” It cannot be categorized as a reasonable pre-estimate of damages for a non-responsive bid and thus the bank guarantee for 5 per cent of the bid amount cannot be encashed in such an eventuality. The high court ruled this in the case of IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Ltd vs National Highway Authority of India. The “request for proposal” submitted by the firm for a road project in Tamil Nadu being responsive, the forfeiture was illegal the firm was entitled to refund of the amount from NHAI, the judgment said.
Explore the legal battle: Purvez A. Poonawalla’s settlement with R.K.Bavasa, challenging the will of late Mrs. Mani Cawasa Bamji. Tax implications discussed.
The AO relied on the specific principle mentioned in the circular. However, the circular has no binding force on the income-tax authorities and needs to be used only as guidance. While applying the principles of the circular, the facts need to be considered in each of the case. It is well-settled principle that whether the activity of buying and selling of the shares is in the nature of trade and investment is a mixed question of law and fact. In this case, on perusal of the details of share transactions filed with the return of income, the Tribunal observed that, the taxpayer has treated the entire investment in the shares as an investment only and not as a stock-in-trade.
CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)- Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no challenge to the finding that certificate issued to the assessee under Section 195(2) was never cancelled and in absence thereof, the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default. In view of the said unchallenged finding, the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained. Once it is so, we are of the view that the questions referred need not be gone into.
