Follow Us:

Judiciary

Assessee in garb of entering hedging transaction cannot seek to enter into speculative transaction in any stocks or shares other than one held by him as inventory

February 6, 2011 1207 Views 0 comment Print

If all speculative transactions will be claimed as hedging transactions, very purpose behind the provisions of section 73 not permitting set off of speculative loss against business income will become redundant.

Section 68- Initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit

February 6, 2011 2233 Views 0 comment Print

Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.”

Reopening without proper application of Mind by Assessing officer is invalid

February 6, 2011 948 Views 0 comment Print

If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to prove (a) Identity of the shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) credit worthiness of shareholders; If the assessee has produced documents like PAN Card, bank account details or details from the bankers the onus shifts upon the AO and it is for him to reach the shareholders and the AO cannot burden the assessee merely on the ground that summons issued to the investors were returned back with the endorsement “not traceable”; There is an additional burden on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of such finding, addition cannot be made u/s 68 in the hands the assessee.

Amendment brought out in Section 40(a)(ia) are clarificatory and retrospective w.e.f 1st April 2005

February 6, 2011 1565 Views 0 comment Print

Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) – Payment to resident without deduction of tax-Amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010-Nature of amendment-Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) is of clarificatory nature and hence would apply retrospectively from 1-4-2005.

Money advanced to shareholder for specific purpose cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)

February 6, 2011 2435 Views 0 comment Print

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)-Money advanced to shareholder for specific purpose-Where the company advanced certain sum to a shareholder for a specific purpose then the amount so advanced cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)

Allowability of Set off of brought forward business against the profits on sale of business assets which are assessed to

February 5, 2011 702 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal held that income earned by the taxpayer on sale of factory building, plant and machinery although not taxable as “Profit and gains of business or profession” was in the nature of income of business though assessed as capital gains and he

Payments for using segment capacity in a transponder for uplinking/downlinking data not taxable

February 5, 2011 2378 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT held that the payments made for using capacity in a transponder for uplinking/down linking data do not constitute ‘royalty’ under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court held that the customers did not make payments for the use of any process or equipment, since control over the process or equipment was with the taxpayer and not with the customers.

In case of export of service, relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee

February 5, 2011 2549 Views 0 comment Print

Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.

Taxes withheld by determining the income of non-resident under special regime (section 44BB) without approaching the tax officer will not lead to violation of withholding tax provisions

February 4, 2011 900 Views 0 comment Print

Chennai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Ltd. v DCIT ITA No. 200/Mds/2009, held that where payment to a non-resident is covered under the special regime of section 44BB, withholding of appropriate tax by the payer through the application of the special regime and without approaching the Assessing Officer will not lead to any violation of withholding tax provisions. Accordingly, expenses cannot be disallowed for short withholding of taxes.

Consideration paid for goodwill on acquisition of running business is eligible for depreciation

February 4, 2011 960 Views 0 comment Print

The CIT contended that there was no specification of assets, such as know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which was represented by the said goodwill. Further, th

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