Some Important Judicial Pronouncements

[CA. GOYAL MANISH]

Dear All,

Please find below some important Judicial Pronouncements for your reference.

Some Important Judicial Pronouncements:

1.RECOVERY  In favour of: Assessee  To raise a demand or directing refund to tax deductor, could be passed within one year from end of financial year within which related TDS statement was filed, assessee’s filed TDS on 19th February 2014, hence no fee could be levied u/s 234E as time for filling TDS had already elapsed.  Ahmedabad Tribunal  BAPASHRI MAHOTSAV SMRUTI TRUST VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2015) 45 CCH 0352 AhdTrib  Decided On: Dec 29, 2015

2.BUSINESS EXPENDITURE  In favour of: Assessee  It is well settled law that no ad hoc disallowance can be made unless AO brings any specific detail on record which may call for any disallowance  Delhi Tribunal  DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. : (2015) 45 CCH 0355 DelTrib  Decided On: Dec 30, 2015

3.INTEREST PAYABLE AND RECEIVABLE  In favour of: Assessee  Adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E is beyond scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A.  Ahmedabad Tribunal  MANU HARI TOBACCO VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 46 CCH 0002 AhdTrib Decided On: Jan 01, 2016

4.TRANSFER PRICING  In favour of: Assessee  When Revenue was unable to demonstrate any tangible material to effect that there was international transaction involving AMP expenses between Assessee and its AE, question of determining the ALP of such transaction could not arise.  High Court Of Delhi  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. : (2015) 94 CCH 0156 DelHC  Decided On: Dec 22, 2015

 

--

CA.Manish Goyal
R.N.GOYAL & CO
Chartered Accountants
M.R. Road, Siliguri-734005
9434039003/9832062449

[CA. GOYAL MANISH]

Dear All,

Please find below some important Judicial Pronouncements for your reference.

Some Important Judicial Pronouncements:

1.ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE In favour of: Assessee  When an application under Rule 29 had been filed by assessee submitting additional evidence and since this additional evidence would have a bearing on issue under consideration, same was admitted and the matter sent for a fresh consideration.  Delhi Tribunal  ATUL LAL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER : (2016) 46 CCH 0009 DelTrib  Decided On: Jan 05, 2015 2.TAX EFFECT  In favour of: Assessee  As per Circular No.21 of 2015 instructions mentioned in circular were applicable to pending appeals and there was clear cut instruction to department to withdraw or not to press appeals filed before ITAT wherein tax effect was less than Rs.10,00,000.  Delhi Tribunal  ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS RANGOLI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. : (2016) 46 CCH 0008 DelTrib

Decided On: Jan 01, 2016

3.INTEREST PAYABLE AND RECEIVABL In favour of: Assessee

Adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E is beyond scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A.

Ahmedabad Tribunal  PERFECT CROPSCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 46 CCH 0003 AhdTrib

Decided On: Jan 01, 2016

[CA. GOYAL MANISH]

Dear All,

Please find below some important Judicial Pronouncements for your reference.

Some Important Judicial Pronouncements:

 

1. DEEMED DIVIDENE In favour of: Revenue  When the assessee merely claimed that he had taken housing loan from company, but, failed to prove that said advance was nothing but housing loan with any material evidence hence the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) was justified.  Vishakapatnam Tribunal  M. AMARESWARA RAO VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 46 CCH 0032 VisakhapatnamTrib  Decided On: Jan 08, 2015

2. CHARITABLE TRUSTS In favour of: Assessee  When the assessee is created by the sovereign authority for the purpose of development, orderly growth of industries and environmental upgradation by controlling through the assessee various aspects such as utilization of land, water and pollution relating to Petroleum, Chemical and Petrochemical Industry than assessee is entitled for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.  Vishakapatnam Tribunal  VISAKHAPATNAM KAKINADA PETROLEUM VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 46 CCH 0033 VisakhapatnamTrib  Decided On: Jan 08, 2016

3. TRANSFER PRICING In favour of: Assessee (partly)  Where on FAR analysis, conclusion that a certain company was correctly chosen as comparable remained unassailed, then it was necessary for Revenue to bring some cogent reason, argument or fact justifying that comparable needed to be excluded and in absence of same, revenue’s appeal against it would have no merits.  Delhi Tribunal  DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. : (2016) 46 CCH 0031 DelTrib  Decided On: Jan 11, 2016

4. BUSINESS EXPENDITURE In favour of: Assessee  No addition was required to be made where transactions entered into by assessee company with its director and its sister concern were normal business transactions which did not reflect any intention of assessee to will-fully evade tax by paying higher rate of interest.  Ahmedabad Tribunal  MAHAVIR INDUCTOMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. : (2016) 46 CCH 0007 AhdTrib  Decided On: Jan 04, 2016

 

[CA. GOYAL MANISH]

Dear All,

Please find below some important Judicial Pronouncements for your reference.

Some Important Judicial Pronouncements:

1.CHARITABLE TRUSTS In favour of: Assessee (Partly)  “The expression “charitable purpose” is not to be construed in a vacuum but in the specific context of Section 10(23C)(iv) which specifically deals with income received by any person on behalf of, inter ala, an institution established for charitable purposes.  Delhi Tribunal  INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 46 CCH 0040 DelTrib  Decided On: Jan 14, 2016

2.NON-RESIDENT In favour of: Revenue  When assessee in no way was concerned by the action of cancellation of share resulting in reduction of share capital, the attempt of assessee to bring transferring of shares within ambit of term “re-organisation” was not correct, since object of the arrangement was not financial restructuring, but to provide an exit route to non-resident shareholders and hence capital gain arising on transfer of shares shall be taxable in India.  Bombay Tribunal  ACCORDIS BEHEER B V VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) : (2016) 46 CCH 0038 MumTrib  Decided On: Jan 13, 2016

3.INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES In favour of: Assessee  In order to invoke provisions of section 69B, burden was on revenue to prove that Assessee invested in property, amount that was over and above of what was disclosed in its balance sheet.  Kolkata Tribunal  DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS GLOBAL MERCANTILES PVT. LTD. : (2016) 46 CCH 0041 KolTrib  Decided On: Jan 13, 2016

 

[CA. GOYAL MANISH]

Dear All,

Please find below some important Judicial Pronouncements for your reference.

1.CHARITABLE TRUSTS In favour of: Assessee (Partly)

Where there was no material brought on record by DIT(E) to demonstrate/establish that either there was change in objects of assessee institutions on basis of which registration was granted earlier or activities of institution were not in accordance with its stated objects, First proviso to s 2(15) would not be relevant for purpose of cancellation/withdrawal of registration of the impugned Charitable institution u/s 12AA(3).  Bombay Tribunal  BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMERCE AND INDUSTRY VS INCOME TAX OFFICER : (2016) 46 CCH 0046 MumTrib  Decided On: Jan 15, 2016

2.TRANSFER PRICING  In favour of: Assessee  Where the TPO in principle accepted remuneration model of 25% revenue sharing and same had been substantiated and justified by documents so submitted before authorities below and the genuineness of the documents which were relied on by the authorities had not been doubted by the Department, Revenue’s appeal against same was justified to be dismissed.  High Court Of Calcutta  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD. : (2016) 95 CCH 0008 KolHC

Decided On: Jan 08, 2016

3.ADDITION In favour of: Assessee  No addition can be made in respect of assessment which has become final if no incriminating material is found during the course of search.  Bombay Tribunal  DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS HIMANSHU B. KANAKIA : (2016) 46 CCH 0047 MumTrib  Decided On: Jan 18, 2016

4.BUSINESS EXPENDITURE  In favour of: Revenue  It is incumbent on part of assessee to adduce proof of service having been rendered during period under assessment and where assessee did not offer same, disallowance of service charges was rightly made.  Supreme Court Of India  GANAPATHY & CO. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : (2016) 95 CCH 0009 ISCC  Decided On: Jan 18, 2016