Monthly (September 2014) + Consolidated (Jan to September 2014) Digest Of Imp Case Laws
The monthly digest of important case laws for the month of August 2014 and the consolidated digest for the period from January to August 2014 are available for download. In addition, the consolidated digest for the period from January 2013 to December 2013 as well as the consolidated digest for the period from January 2012 to December 2012 are also available for download.
National Horticulture Board vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 2(15): Fees or consideration received for rendition of a service to business, trade or commerce will not attract the disability under first proviso to s. 2(15) if such service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself
Even in a situation in which an assessee receives a fees or consideration for rendition of a service to the business, trade or commerce, as long as such a service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself, the disability under second limb of first proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play
ACIT vs. M/s Vardaan Fashion (ITAT Delhi)
S. 269SS: Loan & deposit by way of journal entries are not covered. Transactions between a firm and its partner are also not covered
In the books of the assessee, there is only a journal entry by debiting the account of some other party and crediting to the account of the creditor. In these circumstances, in our opinion, when there is no monetary transaction between the assessee and creditor, it cannot be said that assessee accepted loan or deposit from the creditor in violation of Section 269SS
ACIT vs. S. K. International (Export) Co (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 10B(4): The argument that s. 10B(4) lays down a computational formula and that all business profits (including DEPB receipts) should be eligible for deduction irrespective of the effective source is not acceptable
We are unable to subscribe to the view expressed per the decisions relied upon by the assessee, i.e., that in view of computational formula of section 10B(4), the entire profits of the business of the undertaking, irrespective of their immediate source, shall comprise the qualifying profits
Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 153C: Even if the AO of the person searched and the 'other person' is the same, the recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched is an essential and prerequisite condition for bestowing jurisdiction to the AO of the 'other person. Impact of amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 w.e.f. 1.10.2014 considered
It is a clear-cut proposition that the recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched is an essential and prerequisite condition for bestowing jurisdiction to the AO of the 'other person.' On a close comparative study, it is overt that in so far as the question of acquiring jurisdiction by the AO of the person other than the person searched is concerned, the provisions of section 153C are in pari materia with section 158BD
Raibareilly District Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. DIT (ITAT Lucknow)
S. 271FA: As DIT is of the same rank as the CIT(A), an appeal against the DIT's order can only be filed before the ITAT even though s. 253(1) does not refer to s. 271FA
Though there is no specific reference of the order passed under section 271FA of the Act by the Director of Income-tax in section 253(1) of the Act for the purpose of filing an appeal against the said order, but an analogy drawn from the reading of section 253(1) of the Act is that the order passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax or an Officer who is equal in rank can only be challenged before the Tribunal, which is higher in rank
Fortune Polymers Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied for an assessment made in a cursory & summary manner
A perusal of the assessment order demonstrates that it has been passed in a cursory and summary manner, de hors of any detail, except for mentioning that certain figures had not tallied, no analysis whatsoever or reasons leading to the disallowance, are given by the AO. AO simply says that the assessee has filed reply explaining the discrepancies but does not give any reason as to why the explanation cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment, in our view cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C)
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 264: ITAT entertains appeal against order passed by CIT u/s 264
No comments:
Post a Comment