Pages

Friday, December 30, 2011

New Notifications, Business Expenditure, Return, Refund, Exemption u/s.10(23C), Search and Seizure

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CA Saiprasad Bagrecha <saiprasadbagrecha@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Subject: {jalgaoncas} New Notifications, Business Expenditure, Return, Refund, Exemption u/s.10(23C), Search and Seizure
To:


Dear All,

Find enclosed text on the above topics.

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/notification-fno-1-10-2011-ns-ii-dated.html

Notification F.No. 1-10-2011-NS-II dated 25 November 2011

It is notified for general information that the sale of Kisan Vikas Patras shall be discontinued

with effect from the close of business on Wednesday, the 30th November, 2011.

 

 

Notification F.No. 1-12-2011-NS-II, dated 25 November 2011

 

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 283 of the Constitution, the President

hereby makes the following further amendments in the National Small Savings Fund (Custody

and Investment) Rules, 2001, namely:-

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/exemption-under-s-1023c.html

 

Exemption under s 10(23C)

 

The assessee, Delhi Music Society, teaching and promoting all forms of music and dance, western, Indian or any other, is entitled to an exemption under s 10(23C), as held by DelHC in Delhi Music Society v Director General of Income Tax — In favour of: The assessee; WP (C) No 4726/2011.

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/section-194c-vis-vis-s-194-i.html

 

Section 194C vis-à-vis s 194-I

 

 

The contract for transportation in respect of chartering a helicopter/aircraft does not attract TDS under s 194-I and TDS is liable to be deducted under s 194C, as held by MumTrib in SKIL Infrastructure Ltd v ITO — In favour of: The assessee.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/appeal.html

 

Appeal

 

Findings of facts which do not give rise to a substantial question of law are not liable to be interfered with in an appeal under s 260A, as held by PHHC in CIT, Ludhiana v Ashok Kumar Dhir — In favour of: The assessee; ITA No 598 of 2010 (O&M).

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/refund.html

 

Refund

 

If an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund cannot be adjusted under s 245 on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year, as held by DelHC in Maruti Suzuki India Limited v Dy CIT — In favour of: The assessee; Writ Petition (Civil) No 2252/2011.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/business-expenditure.html

 

Business expenditure

 

The expenditure incurred on maintenance and repair on the personal property cannot be set-off and allowed as business expenditure under s 37, as held by DelHC in Mira Kulkarni v ACIT — In favour of: The revenue; ITA 199/2010.

 

Where the assessee failed to show that expenses incurred were wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the hotel business, the same cannot be allowed under s 37(1).

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/exemption-under-s-10a.html

 

 

Exemption under s 10A

 

 

The method of headcount followed by the assessee cannot be discarded merely because there can be more than one method of apportioning the common expenses between the STP and non-STP domestic units, particularly when the same has been followed consistently by the assessee in the past and has also been accepted by the department, as held by DelHC in CIT v EHPT India P Ltd — In favour of: The assessee; ITA Nos 1172, 1194/2008.

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/exemption-under-s-1023c_27.html

 

Exemption under s 10(23C)

 

 

Merely because some students have challenged the admission in the medical college run by the trust and the High court declaring certain admissions as illegal would not come in the assessee's claim for an exemption under s 10(23C), particularly when the SLP against such an order is pending before the Apex Court and where the assessee has been granted an exemption in subsequent years, as held by RajHC in Geetanjali University Trust v CCIT and Anr — In favour of: The assessee; SB Civil Writ Petition No 11799/2010.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/deduction-under-s-80-ib.html

 

Deduction under s 80-IB

 

Filing of an audit report in Form 10CCB for claiming a deduction under s 80-IB.

 

Cash credits — Where the identity and creditworthiness of the companies who had allegedly paid the share application money and the genuineness of the transaction had not been proved, the AO was justified in making an addition under s 68, as held by MadHC in CIT v AKS Alloys (P) Ltd — In favour of: The assessee.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/depreciation.html

 

Depreciation

 

 

Benefit of s 32 is available only to owner of asset — Since assessee was not owner of machinery, he is not entitled to claim depreciation on machinery bought by it on hire purchase basis and leased by him to third party, held by DelHC in Sai Industries Ltd v ACIT — In favour of: The revenue.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/business-expenditure_27.html

 

Business Expenditure

 

Disallowance under s 14A — Matter remitted to consider issue of disallowance since assessee failed to discharge onus placed upon him in establishing that borrowed funds had indeed been utilised for purpose of their business purposes nor had assessee proved that aforesaid investment had been made in shares out of their own interest-free funds, held by DelTrib in DCIT v Jay Pee Ventures (P) Ltd — In favour of: Others.

 

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/return.html

 

Return

 

Filing — If assessee rectifies defect in return even after expiry of fifteen days or further period allowed, but before assessment is made, AO may condone delay and treat return as valid return, held by MumHC in Crawford Bayley & Co v Union of India & Ors — In favour of: The assessee.

 

http://www.indiantaxhome.com/2011/12/search-and-seizure.html

 

Search and seizure

 

Quashing of warrant of authorisation — In absence of any relevant material with authorities, which would have enabled them to have "a reason to believe" that action under s 132(1) of Act was essential, warrant of authorisation for conducting search is liable to be quashed and consequently notice under s 153A is also bad in law, held by MumHC in Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd and Others v DGIT and Others — In favour of: The assessee.

 


--
=======================================================================================
CA Saiprasad P. Bagrecha 
Mob:- +91- 98235 26824 / + 91-82750 32822


No comments:

Post a Comment