Age of senior citizens is 60 Years
New category of Senior citizen introduced , age 80 years , exemption limit Rs 5,00,000/-
Minor change in Tax slab 1.60 to 1.80.
Salaried person does not have income from other sources, need not to file Return of income.
-टैक्स स्लैब में छूट की सीम बढ़ाई गई। अब 1.60 लाख रुपये के बदले 1.80 लाख रुपये तक की सालाना आमदनी पर कोई टैक्स नहीं देना होगा।
-सीनियर सिटीजन के लिए टैक्स छूट की सीमा 2.40 लाख रुपये से बढ़ाकर 2.50 लाख रुपये की गई। इसके लिए उम्र की सीमा 65 से घटाकर 60 साल की गई।
-सीनियर सिटीजन में एक नई कैटिगरी भी बनाई गई है। 80 साल के ऊपर के बुजुर्गों को 5 लाख रुपये तक की सालाना आमदनी पर कोई टैक्स नहीं देना होगा।
-लॉन्ग टर्म इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर बॉन्ड पर 20 हजार रुपये तक के निवेश पर टैक्स छूट एक साल और बढ़ाई गई।
-वेतनभोगी लोगों को अगर कोई अतिरिक्त आय नहीं है तो टैक्स रिटर्न नहीं देना होगा। इसीएस से टैक्स भुगतान की सुविधा पूरे देश में होगी
--
Me on net :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/
http://itronline.blogspot.com/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported
Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
CLAIMS IN RETURN OR OTHERWSE ??
CLAIMS IN RETURN OR OTHERWSE – A NEW APPROACH AND AMENDMETN IS REQUIRED IN VIEW OF E-FILING OF RETURN
Links and references:
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 2008 -TMI - 3591 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI.
Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT, 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court)
CIT (A) in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court)
National Thermal power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court).
Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 -TMI - 16114 – (DELHI High Court) Kedarnath Jute 1971 -TMI - 6262 – (SUPREME Court).
CIT V Agarwal Transformers P. Ltd 2002 -TMI - 12300 – (RAJASTHAN High Court).
Claim in return of income:
Generally a claim of any expenditure, deduction or exemption should be preferred in computation itself and claimed in the return in form of returned income which should be as reduced by such claims. If a claim is not made, it cannot be accepted by the AO while making assessment in summary manner by accepting the return.
Contentions issues:
Tax laws are very complex and on many issues there can be difference of opinion. A claim which is not allowed by the AO can be subject matter of penalty proceedings. Therefore, assessee may adopt policy of play safe and may not claim a doubtful or contentions claim in the return.
Paper return vis a vis e-filing;
When a paper return is filed, the assessee usually attaches a computation of income and supporting documents. In the computation assessee can make further claims for consideration of the AO. However, in course of e-filing of return such claims cannot be made. Even if assessee files a copy of computation and supporting documents, the AO may not consider the same. Therefore, it is difficult to make further claims for consideration of the AO. In such a situation, the only way available to the assessee is to make a claim in the returned income and keep explanation ready so that if the AO enquire about the claim assessee is ready to offer a reasonable explanation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court- claim in return or revised return is must- need reconsideration:
The Supreme Court In case of Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT, 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court), held that a claim in the return or revised return is a must. A claim cannot be made by way of letter.
In that case the assessee did not make some claims in the computation of income and the return filed before the assessing officer on 30.11.1995 (revised return) for assessment year 1995-96. However, the assessee made a further claim vide a letter filed with the AO claiming certain deductions, which were not claimed in the return of income. The assessing officer disallowed the claim for the reason that there was no provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961 to permit the assessee to make an amendment in the return without a revised return. The Tribunal as well as the High Court confirmed the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal holding that a claim not made in original return cannot be claimed by way of letter before the assessing officer and the assessing authority has no power to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return.
Therefore, now it is settled that if assessee wants to make a claim, he must prefer the claim in the return or in a revised return. Mere filing of letter before the assessing officer will not be sufficient and on that ground alone the assessee may lose the relief.
Author feels that the case before the Supreme Court was not properly contested and argued. The specific mentions should have been made by the assessee as to why a claim was made by way of letter instead of by revising return, how limitations prescribed in law prevented the assessee to make a claim in the return, how the policy of `play safe' prompted the assessee not to make a claim in return to avoid penal action, in case the claim was ultimately held by courts as not allowable, other reasons like complexity of issue, uncertainties before the assessee about making the claim in the return etc. could have been pointed out and it could have been pleaded that the AO is duty bound to allow relief, even if it was not claimed by the assessee.
Though return is significant, however, it is not final about tax base:
Return under any tax law is the primary document in which the assessee expresses his computation of the subject matter like income, wealth, expenditure, sales etc. The return is basis upon information and documents, which the assessing officer proceeds to assess the assessee. Therefore, the return is foundation about initiation of assessment proceedings when a return has been filed. The assessee can make his claims in the return of income, as he may considers fit, proper and bona fide at the time of filing of the return. Where there is a doubt, the assessee must have an option to request the AO to allow relief, even if not claimed by assessee due to mistake or ignorance. The assessee must be given an opportunity to make further claims.
Claims having some doubts.
Due to complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty of law, there are many claims which assessee wants to prefer with a caution. To avoid extra burden, which may arise if the claim is not allowed, the assessee may choose not to claim the deduction in main computation and pay tax without making deduction for such item. However, unless a claim is made in the return (or a revised return) it cannot be considered by the assessing officer.
Claim in the original return is best way:
The best way to claim any relief is to make a claim in the original return. A claim can be made by way of revised return, subject to compliance of applicable conditions like that the original return should have been filed within time permissible originally e.g. in case of return of income the original return should have been filed within time allowed u/s 139 (1) then only a revised return can be filed within prescribed time and before completion of assessment.
Many times one may think to file a revised return after clearance of some doubts or on gaining more confidence about such claim. However, once a return is filed, one may be busier in other work and may miss the opportunity to file revised return. Therefore, at lease claims for consideration by the A.O. can be made in the original return itself so that it can be pressed.
Suggested way to claim in case of doubtful claims:
The assessee may want to play safe to avoid burden of tax, interest and penalty liabilities, which may arise if the claim is not allowed. However, as noted above in view of judgment of the Supreme Court, it is necessary that the claim must be preferred in the return. Therefore, the following course of action may be adopted by filing a return or hard copy of e-return: -
A. The Return is without prejudice:
On the cover of the return or other documents and on the acknowledgment "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", should be written.
Illustration of further claims:
Below the computation it should be mentioned that the above computation of income is without prejudice to the following further claims for deductions, benefits and advantages, which are, as per assessee admissible, but have not been claimed in the computation due to disputes raised by the revenue.
B. Claims for consideration of the assessing officer
In addition to the computation as given above, the learned assessing officer is requested to consider the following claims which have not been made in the computation to play safe, and because of difference of opinions. Please allow proper relief:
a) Normal depreciation on new electrical generators costing Rs. one crore has been claimed at general rate of 15% amounting to Rs.15 lakh instead of 80% allowable as per the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V Agarwal Transformers P. Ltd 2002 -TMI - 12300 – (RAJASTHAN High Court). Please consider allowing 80% depreciation and allowing further relief of Rs.65 lakh.
b) Interest on loan taken from a bank has not been claimed in the above computation because the suit filed by the bank is still pending before the court. In earlier year the CIT (A) / Tribunal has allowed such interest. However, the appeal of the Revenue is pending before the Tribunal / High Court. Please allow further deduction of Rs…
c) Deductions of provident fund, ESI has not been made as payment was made after 15th April but before the due date for filing of the return. In view of several decisions of the Tribunal and decision of the CIT (A) in assesses own case, rendered on this aspect and in view of amendment in section 43B, these payments may be allowed.
d) The estimated disallowance of interest and administrative expenses has been made u/s 14A in respect of tax-free income earned by way of dividend and long-term capital gain. However, it is submitted that shares and securities were acquired in the course of share trading business few years ago and when the nature was changed from stock to investment they were transferred to investment account. Therefore, capital was borrowed for purchasing shares and securities as a stock-in-trade. Furthermore, even investment activity is an adventure in nature of commerce and therefore though shares and securities held as investment are capital assets of the business. Just like fixed assets used in business, shares and securities are also capital assets of the business of investment. Therefore, interest and administrative expenses are necessary business outgo and may be fully allowed while computing business income.
Claims in respect of such items which have a chance of being disallowed by the assessing officer can properly be claimed before the assessing officer in computation itself or below the computation and thereafter if the assessing officer does not consider the same or considers but disallows, the assessee can prefer a rectification petition, appeal or revision petition as may be found suitable.
C. A general clause for consideration of the AO
Below the computation following general clauses in form of prayer may be given
We have made the computation of income as per our understanding and as advised by our tax consultant. We have made some claims for your kind consideration as noted above. However, there may be some more relief, benefit, and advantage allowable to us, which we have not claimed due to ignorance. We request you to kindly allow us all admissible relief, benefit, advantage so as to compute our income and our tax liability correctly and also to work out the amount of refund and interest allowable to us correctly.
In case of e-return:
When a return is filed electronically, it is to be filed as per the e-from and there is not yet any scope by way of explanation sheet or further claim sheet in the e-return forms.
It is suggested that in the e-return forms, provision can be made to provide the assessee scope and option to add some sheets for explanations and further claims for consideration of the AO.
However, till such option is not available the assessee can do the following:
File a hard copy of return and supporting documents with a covering letter stating that the return is without prejudice, and that the AO is requested to consider further claims as mentioned in the covering letter or the accompanying documents. The assessee can also file explanations and supporting documents to justify his claims where there is some scope of doubt or there are different opinions prevailing.
Revised return may be filed
A revised return can be filed within prescribed circumstances and within prescribed limitation. For example under the Income Tax-tax Act, 1961 a revised return can be filed only if the original return has been filed within the due date under section 139(1). A belated return cannot be revised. Therefore, if there are certain claims, which have not been preferred in the original return, the assessee may file revised return of income to claim such claims by way of making a claim in the computation itself or by making claim for consideration of the assessing officer as additional claims.
The CIT (A) has power co-terminus with assessing officer-
a new twist is likely to take place:
Earlier, generally the AO, Commissioner (Appeals) / ITAT used to consider claims on merit, even if some claims were preferred before the A.O. by way of letters during course of hearing before the A.O. However, after the above judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Goetz, it may be difficult to press a claim even before the CIT (A), unless there was a claim in the return filed before the A.O. Because the CIT (A), having power co-terminus with the A.O., can very well take a view that what the A.O. cannot consider, cannot be considered by the CIT (A) as well. Therefore, it becomes necessary that at least in some way claim must be found in the return or accompanying documents to claim such further claims which the assessee wants to press but do not want to make in computation itself to avoid chances of disallowance and consequent liability of tax, interest and penalty proceedings.
After the judgment in case of Goetz (supra.) the AO are not even considering claim for refund if not made in the return. Cases have been informed that the AO, while considering refund or credit for tax is considering the claim made by assessee and credit shown in OLTAS. If an assessee has not made claim for TDS or tax paid in the return, credit may be denied, even if the amount of TDS or tax paid is shown credited in OLTAS or other computerized reports of the department.
Earlier rulings on powers of CIT (A) and ITAT:
Earlier rulings on powers of the CIT (A) in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court) power of ITAT in case of National Thermal power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court), also suggests that they have power to consider a claim on additional matters only if some material is found in the assessment record. In recent decision in case of Goetz (supra.) the Supreme Court has specifically mentioned that their decision is about power of the A.O. and not of power of the ITAT. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that " However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income tax Act, 1961."
The decision about powers of the CIT (A) in case of Jute Corporation has not been mentioned and considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz. Therefore, there is big question mark on power of CIT(A). A view can be taken that CIT(A) has power co-terminus with the AO, therefore, if a claim cannot be accepted by the AO, CIT(A) cannot admit and consider the same.
In case of Jute corporation, the CIT (A) was held to have power to entertain a legal claim (for liability of sales tax based on ruling of supreme court in case of Kedarnath Jute 1971 -TMI - 6262 – (SUPREME Court)) which was not considered by the A.O. {it is not clear whether a claim was made or not before the A.O. in the return of income.}. It was held that the CIT (A) has all the powers, which the A.O. had on the assessment, and CIT (A) can consider what the A.O. has omitted to consider. This means there was some material before the A.O. to consider the claim but the A.O. omitted to or failed to consider. When the A.O. cannot consider a claim, if not made in the return, it seems extremely doubtful, whether CIT (A) will consider such claim after the judgment in Goetz case.
Judgment of Delhi High Court on power of ITAT:
In CIT Versus M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd decided on 07 April 2008 2008 -TMI - 3591 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI the matter of power of ITAT to consider a new claim came for consideration. Revenue expenditure was shown as deferred revenue expenditure in the audited balance sheet. However, it was claimed as allowable in an additional ground preferred before the Tribunal. The revenue objected to such claim as the Tribunal on the basis of additional ground raised by the assessee allowed full deduction even though it was not claimed in the original return or a revised return.
Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal's decision.
An analysis of Delhi High Court's ruling:
In paragraph 17 the High Court considered that in Goetze (India) Limited v. commissioner of Income Tax 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the power of Tribunal.
High Court referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court), where the Supreme Court observed that:- 'The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessees as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier.'
Therefore, according to this judgment Tribunal has power to admit additional claim arising from assessment records and first appeal order. High Court also referred to Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 -TMI - 16114 – (DELHI High Court), wherein the Apex Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) has been followed.
In paragraph 16 the High Court has considered Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court) about powers of CIT(A). Therein the Supreme Court observed that:-'An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also.'
Thus according to the Delhi High Court, the CIT(A) and ITAT can, in view of earlier rulings of the Supreme Court can, in some circumstances consider additional claims.
The purpose of different proceedings is to have assessment as per law:
We find that there are many more proceedings and options are available to revenue in comparison to the assessee to achieve correct assessment of tax. The assessee also faces more stringent restrictions and limitations as compared to revenue. The revenue has many effective remedies like rectification, revision, re assessment and recomputation etc. The limitation prescribed are also longer. Whereas the assessee has only effective way to file a revised return to prefer claim.
Amendment is desirable to permit additional claims:
Tax laws are very complex, even Supreme Courts judgments may not be final- in a review petition, larger bench may change the law, or an amendment may be made. Provisions for interest and penalty are severe. In such circumstances, most of the assessee would prefer to adopt `play safe' approach even if returns are by and large accepted. After filing of return some relief may come to knowledge of the assessee, but by that time, limit to file a revised return might have lapsed. In such circumstances the assessee must be given some way to prefer claims and to get back excessive tax paid. Therefore, some simple provisions for preferring claims by way of rectification petition should be brought in the tax laws.
Conclusions:
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation read with Goetz India Ltd. as discussed above, it is likely that if a claim is not made before the assessing officer in the return of income or revised return of income, the CIT (A) may not entertain any additional claim. Therefore, to avoid controversy it is necessary that there must be claim in the original return or revised return validly filed before the assessing officer. There is no specific manner prescribed or restriction as to manner of making a claim in the return otherwise than making a claim in computation itself, therefore, claims made by way of notes to the computation or otherwise in the return may be regarded as sufficient claim preferred in return to press the claims before the assessing officer failing which before the appellate authorities or revisionary authorities. In case of e-filing there should be separate sheet for such claims.
Dated: - February 18, 2011
Links and references:
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 2008 -TMI - 3591 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI.
Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT, 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court)
CIT (A) in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court)
National Thermal power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court).
Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 -TMI - 16114 – (DELHI High Court) Kedarnath Jute 1971 -TMI - 6262 – (SUPREME Court).
CIT V Agarwal Transformers P. Ltd 2002 -TMI - 12300 – (RAJASTHAN High Court).
Claim in return of income:
Generally a claim of any expenditure, deduction or exemption should be preferred in computation itself and claimed in the return in form of returned income which should be as reduced by such claims. If a claim is not made, it cannot be accepted by the AO while making assessment in summary manner by accepting the return.
Contentions issues:
Tax laws are very complex and on many issues there can be difference of opinion. A claim which is not allowed by the AO can be subject matter of penalty proceedings. Therefore, assessee may adopt policy of play safe and may not claim a doubtful or contentions claim in the return.
Paper return vis a vis e-filing;
When a paper return is filed, the assessee usually attaches a computation of income and supporting documents. In the computation assessee can make further claims for consideration of the AO. However, in course of e-filing of return such claims cannot be made. Even if assessee files a copy of computation and supporting documents, the AO may not consider the same. Therefore, it is difficult to make further claims for consideration of the AO. In such a situation, the only way available to the assessee is to make a claim in the returned income and keep explanation ready so that if the AO enquire about the claim assessee is ready to offer a reasonable explanation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court- claim in return or revised return is must- need reconsideration:
The Supreme Court In case of Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT, 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court), held that a claim in the return or revised return is a must. A claim cannot be made by way of letter.
In that case the assessee did not make some claims in the computation of income and the return filed before the assessing officer on 30.11.1995 (revised return) for assessment year 1995-96. However, the assessee made a further claim vide a letter filed with the AO claiming certain deductions, which were not claimed in the return of income. The assessing officer disallowed the claim for the reason that there was no provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961 to permit the assessee to make an amendment in the return without a revised return. The Tribunal as well as the High Court confirmed the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal holding that a claim not made in original return cannot be claimed by way of letter before the assessing officer and the assessing authority has no power to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return.
Therefore, now it is settled that if assessee wants to make a claim, he must prefer the claim in the return or in a revised return. Mere filing of letter before the assessing officer will not be sufficient and on that ground alone the assessee may lose the relief.
Author feels that the case before the Supreme Court was not properly contested and argued. The specific mentions should have been made by the assessee as to why a claim was made by way of letter instead of by revising return, how limitations prescribed in law prevented the assessee to make a claim in the return, how the policy of `play safe' prompted the assessee not to make a claim in return to avoid penal action, in case the claim was ultimately held by courts as not allowable, other reasons like complexity of issue, uncertainties before the assessee about making the claim in the return etc. could have been pointed out and it could have been pleaded that the AO is duty bound to allow relief, even if it was not claimed by the assessee.
Though return is significant, however, it is not final about tax base:
Return under any tax law is the primary document in which the assessee expresses his computation of the subject matter like income, wealth, expenditure, sales etc. The return is basis upon information and documents, which the assessing officer proceeds to assess the assessee. Therefore, the return is foundation about initiation of assessment proceedings when a return has been filed. The assessee can make his claims in the return of income, as he may considers fit, proper and bona fide at the time of filing of the return. Where there is a doubt, the assessee must have an option to request the AO to allow relief, even if not claimed by assessee due to mistake or ignorance. The assessee must be given an opportunity to make further claims.
Claims having some doubts.
Due to complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty of law, there are many claims which assessee wants to prefer with a caution. To avoid extra burden, which may arise if the claim is not allowed, the assessee may choose not to claim the deduction in main computation and pay tax without making deduction for such item. However, unless a claim is made in the return (or a revised return) it cannot be considered by the assessing officer.
Claim in the original return is best way:
The best way to claim any relief is to make a claim in the original return. A claim can be made by way of revised return, subject to compliance of applicable conditions like that the original return should have been filed within time permissible originally e.g. in case of return of income the original return should have been filed within time allowed u/s 139 (1) then only a revised return can be filed within prescribed time and before completion of assessment.
Many times one may think to file a revised return after clearance of some doubts or on gaining more confidence about such claim. However, once a return is filed, one may be busier in other work and may miss the opportunity to file revised return. Therefore, at lease claims for consideration by the A.O. can be made in the original return itself so that it can be pressed.
Suggested way to claim in case of doubtful claims:
The assessee may want to play safe to avoid burden of tax, interest and penalty liabilities, which may arise if the claim is not allowed. However, as noted above in view of judgment of the Supreme Court, it is necessary that the claim must be preferred in the return. Therefore, the following course of action may be adopted by filing a return or hard copy of e-return: -
A. The Return is without prejudice:
On the cover of the return or other documents and on the acknowledgment "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", should be written.
Illustration of further claims:
Below the computation it should be mentioned that the above computation of income is without prejudice to the following further claims for deductions, benefits and advantages, which are, as per assessee admissible, but have not been claimed in the computation due to disputes raised by the revenue.
B. Claims for consideration of the assessing officer
In addition to the computation as given above, the learned assessing officer is requested to consider the following claims which have not been made in the computation to play safe, and because of difference of opinions. Please allow proper relief:
a) Normal depreciation on new electrical generators costing Rs. one crore has been claimed at general rate of 15% amounting to Rs.15 lakh instead of 80% allowable as per the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V Agarwal Transformers P. Ltd 2002 -TMI - 12300 – (RAJASTHAN High Court). Please consider allowing 80% depreciation and allowing further relief of Rs.65 lakh.
b) Interest on loan taken from a bank has not been claimed in the above computation because the suit filed by the bank is still pending before the court. In earlier year the CIT (A) / Tribunal has allowed such interest. However, the appeal of the Revenue is pending before the Tribunal / High Court. Please allow further deduction of Rs…
c) Deductions of provident fund, ESI has not been made as payment was made after 15th April but before the due date for filing of the return. In view of several decisions of the Tribunal and decision of the CIT (A) in assesses own case, rendered on this aspect and in view of amendment in section 43B, these payments may be allowed.
d) The estimated disallowance of interest and administrative expenses has been made u/s 14A in respect of tax-free income earned by way of dividend and long-term capital gain. However, it is submitted that shares and securities were acquired in the course of share trading business few years ago and when the nature was changed from stock to investment they were transferred to investment account. Therefore, capital was borrowed for purchasing shares and securities as a stock-in-trade. Furthermore, even investment activity is an adventure in nature of commerce and therefore though shares and securities held as investment are capital assets of the business. Just like fixed assets used in business, shares and securities are also capital assets of the business of investment. Therefore, interest and administrative expenses are necessary business outgo and may be fully allowed while computing business income.
Claims in respect of such items which have a chance of being disallowed by the assessing officer can properly be claimed before the assessing officer in computation itself or below the computation and thereafter if the assessing officer does not consider the same or considers but disallows, the assessee can prefer a rectification petition, appeal or revision petition as may be found suitable.
C. A general clause for consideration of the AO
Below the computation following general clauses in form of prayer may be given
We have made the computation of income as per our understanding and as advised by our tax consultant. We have made some claims for your kind consideration as noted above. However, there may be some more relief, benefit, and advantage allowable to us, which we have not claimed due to ignorance. We request you to kindly allow us all admissible relief, benefit, advantage so as to compute our income and our tax liability correctly and also to work out the amount of refund and interest allowable to us correctly.
In case of e-return:
When a return is filed electronically, it is to be filed as per the e-from and there is not yet any scope by way of explanation sheet or further claim sheet in the e-return forms.
It is suggested that in the e-return forms, provision can be made to provide the assessee scope and option to add some sheets for explanations and further claims for consideration of the AO.
However, till such option is not available the assessee can do the following:
File a hard copy of return and supporting documents with a covering letter stating that the return is without prejudice, and that the AO is requested to consider further claims as mentioned in the covering letter or the accompanying documents. The assessee can also file explanations and supporting documents to justify his claims where there is some scope of doubt or there are different opinions prevailing.
Revised return may be filed
A revised return can be filed within prescribed circumstances and within prescribed limitation. For example under the Income Tax-tax Act, 1961 a revised return can be filed only if the original return has been filed within the due date under section 139(1). A belated return cannot be revised. Therefore, if there are certain claims, which have not been preferred in the original return, the assessee may file revised return of income to claim such claims by way of making a claim in the computation itself or by making claim for consideration of the assessing officer as additional claims.
The CIT (A) has power co-terminus with assessing officer-
a new twist is likely to take place:
Earlier, generally the AO, Commissioner (Appeals) / ITAT used to consider claims on merit, even if some claims were preferred before the A.O. by way of letters during course of hearing before the A.O. However, after the above judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Goetz, it may be difficult to press a claim even before the CIT (A), unless there was a claim in the return filed before the A.O. Because the CIT (A), having power co-terminus with the A.O., can very well take a view that what the A.O. cannot consider, cannot be considered by the CIT (A) as well. Therefore, it becomes necessary that at least in some way claim must be found in the return or accompanying documents to claim such further claims which the assessee wants to press but do not want to make in computation itself to avoid chances of disallowance and consequent liability of tax, interest and penalty proceedings.
After the judgment in case of Goetz (supra.) the AO are not even considering claim for refund if not made in the return. Cases have been informed that the AO, while considering refund or credit for tax is considering the claim made by assessee and credit shown in OLTAS. If an assessee has not made claim for TDS or tax paid in the return, credit may be denied, even if the amount of TDS or tax paid is shown credited in OLTAS or other computerized reports of the department.
Earlier rulings on powers of CIT (A) and ITAT:
Earlier rulings on powers of the CIT (A) in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court) power of ITAT in case of National Thermal power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court), also suggests that they have power to consider a claim on additional matters only if some material is found in the assessment record. In recent decision in case of Goetz (supra.) the Supreme Court has specifically mentioned that their decision is about power of the A.O. and not of power of the ITAT. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that " However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income tax Act, 1961."
The decision about powers of the CIT (A) in case of Jute Corporation has not been mentioned and considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz. Therefore, there is big question mark on power of CIT(A). A view can be taken that CIT(A) has power co-terminus with the AO, therefore, if a claim cannot be accepted by the AO, CIT(A) cannot admit and consider the same.
In case of Jute corporation, the CIT (A) was held to have power to entertain a legal claim (for liability of sales tax based on ruling of supreme court in case of Kedarnath Jute 1971 -TMI - 6262 – (SUPREME Court)) which was not considered by the A.O. {it is not clear whether a claim was made or not before the A.O. in the return of income.}. It was held that the CIT (A) has all the powers, which the A.O. had on the assessment, and CIT (A) can consider what the A.O. has omitted to consider. This means there was some material before the A.O. to consider the claim but the A.O. omitted to or failed to consider. When the A.O. cannot consider a claim, if not made in the return, it seems extremely doubtful, whether CIT (A) will consider such claim after the judgment in Goetz case.
Judgment of Delhi High Court on power of ITAT:
In CIT Versus M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd decided on 07 April 2008 2008 -TMI - 3591 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI the matter of power of ITAT to consider a new claim came for consideration. Revenue expenditure was shown as deferred revenue expenditure in the audited balance sheet. However, it was claimed as allowable in an additional ground preferred before the Tribunal. The revenue objected to such claim as the Tribunal on the basis of additional ground raised by the assessee allowed full deduction even though it was not claimed in the original return or a revised return.
Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal's decision.
An analysis of Delhi High Court's ruling:
In paragraph 17 the High Court considered that in Goetze (India) Limited v. commissioner of Income Tax 2006 -TMI - 5171 – (SUPREME Court) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the power of Tribunal.
High Court referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 -TMI - 5626 – (SUPREME Court), where the Supreme Court observed that:- 'The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessees as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier.'
Therefore, according to this judgment Tribunal has power to admit additional claim arising from assessment records and first appeal order. High Court also referred to Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 -TMI - 16114 – (DELHI High Court), wherein the Apex Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) has been followed.
In paragraph 16 the High Court has considered Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 -TMI - 5320 – (SUPREME Court) about powers of CIT(A). Therein the Supreme Court observed that:-'An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also.'
Thus according to the Delhi High Court, the CIT(A) and ITAT can, in view of earlier rulings of the Supreme Court can, in some circumstances consider additional claims.
The purpose of different proceedings is to have assessment as per law:
We find that there are many more proceedings and options are available to revenue in comparison to the assessee to achieve correct assessment of tax. The assessee also faces more stringent restrictions and limitations as compared to revenue. The revenue has many effective remedies like rectification, revision, re assessment and recomputation etc. The limitation prescribed are also longer. Whereas the assessee has only effective way to file a revised return to prefer claim.
Amendment is desirable to permit additional claims:
Tax laws are very complex, even Supreme Courts judgments may not be final- in a review petition, larger bench may change the law, or an amendment may be made. Provisions for interest and penalty are severe. In such circumstances, most of the assessee would prefer to adopt `play safe' approach even if returns are by and large accepted. After filing of return some relief may come to knowledge of the assessee, but by that time, limit to file a revised return might have lapsed. In such circumstances the assessee must be given some way to prefer claims and to get back excessive tax paid. Therefore, some simple provisions for preferring claims by way of rectification petition should be brought in the tax laws.
Conclusions:
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation read with Goetz India Ltd. as discussed above, it is likely that if a claim is not made before the assessing officer in the return of income or revised return of income, the CIT (A) may not entertain any additional claim. Therefore, to avoid controversy it is necessary that there must be claim in the original return or revised return validly filed before the assessing officer. There is no specific manner prescribed or restriction as to manner of making a claim in the return otherwise than making a claim in computation itself, therefore, claims made by way of notes to the computation or otherwise in the return may be regarded as sufficient claim preferred in return to press the claims before the assessing officer failing which before the appellate authorities or revisionary authorities. In case of e-filing there should be separate sheet for such claims.
Dated: - February 18, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Cash Credits [Section 68] : Where assessee had received share appli
Income-tax - Cash Credits [Section 68] : Where assessee had received share application money from investors/share applicants and had submitted list of all shareholders giving their full names, addresses, details of payment made by cheque and had also submitted confirmations from all shareholders giving complete particulars in form of address, cheque numbers and name of bank, PAN and place of assessment, etc. it could be said that assessee had discharged its primary onus as per law in proving identities of all shareholders and accordingly, no addition could be made under section 68 - [2011] 9 taxmann 305 (Delhi)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
ITR : Volume 331 : Part 3 Issue dated 28-02-2011
INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR) HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE DATED 28-2-2011 Volume 331 Part 3
->> Assessee occupying part of building for business as tenant : Deduction allowable pro rata for assessee's portion of building : Danesh A. Irani v. CIT (Bom) p. 291
->> Duty of Appellate Tribunal to pass speaking order : CIT v. Deepak M. Kothari (All) p. 301
->> Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by BIFR wref 1-2-1992 : Revised return filed by assessee on 31-3-1994 claiming unabsorbed business losses of sick company valid : CIT v. J. K. Corporation Ltd. (Cal) p. 303
->> Decision of High Court not to be followed without discussion as to how applicable to facts : Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) p. 317
->> Duty of income-tax authorities to record reasons : Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) p. 317
->> Commercial complex constructed by assessee : Rent received assessed as business income for several years : Income cannot be assessed as income from house property : CIT v. Goel Builders (All) p. 344
->> Assessee borrowing funds and investing in financially fragile sister concerns : Deduction of interest paid on borrowings not allowable : CIT v. Smt. Swapna Roy (All) p. 367
->> Taxing authorities and court entitled to determine true legal relation resulting from transaction : CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries P. Ltd. [FB] (P&H) p. 401
->> Set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation resulting in negative income : Assessee entitled to deduction in computation of book profits : CIT v. Packworth Udyog Ltd. [FB] (Ker) 416
->> Order rejecting application for release of seized articles not valid where no sufficient reason for retention of seized assets : Mitaben R. Shah v. Deputy CIT (Guj) p. 424
STATUTES AND NOTIFICATIONS
->> Notifications :
Income-tax Act, 1961 : Notification under section 35(1)(ii) : Scientific research associations p. 18
NEWS-BRIEF
->> Contributions to promote education without profit motive, entitled to income-tax benefits
The Delhi High Court bench has ruled that section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act should not be given a restrictive meaning and so long as the income is used for fulfilling educational purpose, the exemption should be available. The court rejected the plea of the Revenue Department which had said that if the donations received by the educational institutes are not voluntary, then the dominant intent is to earn the profit.
Merely, non-distribution of such contributions to the members of the institutes or use of such amount for the educational activities would not be sufficient to claim exemption under section 10(22) of the Act of 1961, the Department had said.
The court, however, said: "It cannot be lost sight of that if an institution has to expand, additional infrastructure has to be created, quality education has to be imparted, all these activities require funds. There may be an original corpus of the society but thereafter the corpus for such activity can be created only through voluntary donations either from any philanthropist or through collection of funds in the process of admission."
The court said : "We are not concerned with the morality of the issue while deciding whether exemption has to be granted under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act as all that is required is the absence of profit motive." The Department had denied the exemption claimed by the assessee, an educational society for assessment year of 1993-94.
It dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There were difference of opinion among the two members of the quasi-judicial body. Then the matter was referred to the third member of the ITAT. The Tribunal then in its majority order had ruled in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue Department had came to the High Court. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 14, 2011]
->> Being set aside in the exemption list of DTC, dishearten religious trusts
All religious and charitable trusts set up for a particular religion or caste that are currently exempt from paying income-tax or wealth-tax will lose these benefits once the Direct Taxes Code (DTC) comes into effect from April next year.
This will adversely impact the activities of all such trusts, which run temples, mosques, etc. and provide free hospitalisation, education, shelters, etc., to those sections of the society lying outside the pale of the state's munificence. It may also disincentivise donors who will not be able to claim deduction of 50 per cent. of the donation from taxable income if the trusts are not non-profit organisations.
The problem lies in the definition of a non-profit organisation under the DTC, which has granted exemption to any such entity being a religious trust or institution from the levy of income-tax so long as it is not restricted to a particular religion or caste. There are several such trusts that serve the poor and destitute belonging to the Muslim, Jain, Catholic, Parsee and Hindu communities, among others.
"The provisions were drafted by tax officials without consulting any trustees. No justification has been given for withdrawing the exemptions . . . I think the IT Commissioners want to bring all this to tax."
The Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been in force for 50 years, has exempted all charitable trusts which were set up before April 1, 1962 for a particular religious community or caste. This provision does not exist in the new DTC and once the new law comes into force from April 1, 2012, all existing charitable trusts will have to pay income-tax at the flat rate of 30 per cent. and wealth-tax at 1 per cent.
Apart from being unable to claim income or wealth-tax exemption, the provision under the current Act that allows 100 per cent. accumulation of income by public charitable trusts for five years to build, say, a hospital or school, will not be included in DTC. Currently, a charitable trust is required to spend only 85 per cent. every year on the next year and the balance 15 per cent. can be accumulated for all times to come.
Under the DTC the amount can be accumulated only for three years. Various trusts have come together to form a federation of trusts that has already taken up the matter with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance chaired by a former finance minister. A second meeting with the Standing Committee has been slated for February 25. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 14, 2011]
->> Industry seeks separate tax exemption limit for life and health insurance premiums
The insurance industry wants the Government to create a separate tax exemption limit of Rs. 50,000 for life insurance premium in the forthcoming budget to encourage more individuals to buy such policies.
Currently investment in saving instruments, like risk cover, pension products, PF contributions, National Savings Certificates and others, are eligible for aggregate deduction of Rs. 1 Lakh. Besides, investments in infrastructure bonds up to Rs. 20,000 also qualify for deduction.
"We recommend a separate limit for tax exemption for long-term saving instruments like life insurance or increasing the limits on life and health insurance premium could be looked at," a private life insurance MD said.
Insurance sector needs capital on a periodic basis for expansion and experts hope that the budget session would also see passage of FDI bill in insurance sector to 49 per cent., from the current 26 per cent.
"There is a need for more proactive regulatory architecture for insurance. Foreign insurers could be allowed to set-up under a wholly owned subsidiary with 100 per cent. FDI. The life insurance industry is very capital intensive and companies need huge capital to fund growth," a consultancy firms's Executive Director said.
The life insurance companies currently pay tax of 12.5 per cent. and the Direct Taxes Code, which would replace the archaic IT Act from April 1, 2012, does not specify any specific limit for the same. This would mean being taxed at 30 per cent.
"A significant portion of funds of life insurance companies are invested in infrastructure projects. Also companies incur huge losses initially due to long gestation period. With higher tax rates, it will be unattractive proposal for new investors to invest in the sector," a private insurer said. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 16, 2011]
->> IT Department need to collect a bigger rise in unpaid taxes in a week
Racing to maximise its revenue before the end of this fiscal, the Government has asked all Chief Commissioners of Income-tax in the country to ensure collection of over Rs. 1150 crore of unpaid taxes in a week's time.
The orders to ensure collection of taxes under the self-assessment tax (SAT) category have been issued by the Finance Ministry on February 12 as an urgent and immediate measure to meet the budgetary target of Rs. 4.50 lakh crore of direct taxes for this financial year.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has found that almost Rs. 1157 crore of taxes under the category of self-assessment tax is pending in various ranges of the country including large income regions like Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi.
Under the SAT, the assessee is required to make a self-assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any tax paid by the taxpayer under this category is deemed to have been paid towards regular assessment.
The direct taxes kitty has swelled to Rs. 3.17 lakh crore in January last, against the revised budgetary target of Rs. 4.50 lakh crore. It is to be finalised by March 31.
The highest unpaid SAT is in Mumbai (Rs. 317 crore), Kolkata (Rs. 165 crore), Bangalore (Rs. 125 crore) and Pune (Rs. 96 crore).
Worried over the under-collection of this amount, the CBDT Chairman has issued instructions to 14 Chief Commissioners of Income-tax to ensure the collection by February 20. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 13, 2011]
->> Government are most confident at tighter international tax norms
The Government is considering tightening taxation norms for Indian companies having intermediary holding entities in overseas locations, as part of its efforts to increase its tax revenues.
"With very limited scope left on domestic front to widen tax collection due to inflationary pressure, the Finance Ministry is looking at ways to mop up additional revenues from international taxation front," a source told.
The Government may propose strict norms for disclosure by Indian companies and individuals to tax department about investments and interests in overseas entities, especially those with a holding company structure. The income from these investments and interests would be taxed accordingly, they added.
The Government is as such not in favour of increasing the tax burden on individuals due to inflation. Similarly there is unlikely to be any increase in corporate taxes on domestic businesses as high input expenses and increased borrowing costs are adversely affecting the companies' profitability.
Besides, a larger overhaul of tax structure is already lined up through the Direct Taxes Code, which is expected to come into effect from April 2012.
As per one of such proposals, a foreign company based in a country with lower tax rate, and where one or more Indian residents hold management control, would be treated as a Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) and taxed accordingly in India.
A consultancy major said that the new CFC regime might work against Indian companies with operations abroad, as their competitiveness would be hurt. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 14, 2011]
->> Impending budget may extend tax benefit on infrastructure bonds as a sound investment theme
The Union Budget for 2011-12 could extend the tax benefit on investments made in infrastructure bonds by a year while giving banks access to this special window in an effort to raise debt funds for building physical assets of the country. The last budget had allowed a deduction of an additional Rs. 20,000 for investment in long-term infrastructure bonds, over and above the Rs. 1 lakh limit prescribed for investments in tax saving schemes. Only dedicated infrastructure companies or lenders were allowed to raise funds through these tax savings bonds.
"Various options for infrastructure financing are being examined," said a Government official, adding "extending this window is one of them". The budget for 2009-10 had limited the tax benefit on infrastructure bonds for one year. This was because the Government was hoping to roll out of the Direct Taxes Code from April this year. But now that the new code is unlikely to be implemented before April 2012, the Government could extend the tax relief on these bonds.
"Keeping in view the infrastructure fund requirements of the country and also to make the tax deduction more meaningful, the Government should enhance the investment limit to Rs. 50,000," said an executive director of a consultancy firm. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated February 16, 2011]
--
Me on net :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/
http://itronline.blogspot.com/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported
Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Whether sum paid as compensation for occupation of premises after
Income tax - Whether sum paid as compensation for occupation of premises after expiry of lease and for repair and damages can be treated as sum received as payment for transfer of tenancy rights - NO, rules Calcutta HC
KOLKATA, FEB 18, 2011: THE issue before the HC is - Whether sum paid as compensation for occupation of a premises after the expiry of the lease and for repair or damage to the premises by the tenant can be treated as an amount received by way of consideration for transfer of any tenancy right. And the HC's answer is NO.
Facts of the case
On December 14, 1957, the premises No. 31, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, consisting of land and building was leased out by its the then owner to the Consulate General of USSR by a registered Deed of Lease for a period of 23 years commencing from January 15, 1958 at the monthly rental of Rs.8,000/- a month. The said premises was purchased by Dejoo Tea Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. on November 30, 1977 subject to the said lease dated December 14, 1957 and the lessee, namely, Consulate General of USSR, attorned the tenancy to DT and started paying rent to it.
On January 15, 1981, although the said lease granted in favour of the Consulate General of USSR expired, the lessee refused to vacate and handover possession of the said premises to the DT, as a result, DT approached the Central Government under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to institute legal proceedings against the Consulate General. As no such permission was forthcoming, various proceedings in the writ jurisdiction of this Court were taken and thereafter, the matter went up to the Supreme Court for a direction upon the Central Government to grant permission under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging inaction of the Central Government.
On March 18, 1985, an assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1982-83 (Financial Year 1981-82) assessing Rs.96,000/- as income of the said premises under the head-House property although the lease had expired and no rent was received. It was held that the income under the Head House property was required to be assessed on the notional income that could be received and the fact that the lease had come to an end and that no rent was received from the lessee was irrelevant.
An appeal preferred by the assessee against the said order of assessment was dismissed by CIT (Appeal) holding that the assessment of income under the head-House property made on the basis of notional income at the rate of the rent payable under the lease was justified in law. Assessments were also made on similar basis for the subsequent assessment years 1983-84 to 1991-92 assessing the income under the Head House property notionally on the basis of rent payable under the expired lease in respect of the said premises.
On April 2, 1991, another agreement was entered into between Consulate General and DT for payment of Rs.100 lac for repair and renovation of the said premises after getting vacant possession. It was further provided that on payment of the said sum, DT would not have any claim as to the condition of the property in which the Consulate might leave while vacating and handing over the possession and it was further recorded that during the period of possession by Consulate the damage and injuries to the properties had been caused and repairs were required and the said sum was to be paid in twelve quarterly instalments commencing from 15th January, 1992 and was meant for providing compensation fund for meeting costs and expenses for repair of the property and its restoration to the original condition after it was vacated by the Consulate.
Pursuant to the said agreement, DT received from the Consulate a sum of Rs.99,95,929/- for occupation during 15th January, 1981 to 31st March, 1991 and a further sum of Rs.33,98,952/- was received on account of occupation of the said premises for the period from 1st April, 1991 till 31st March, 1992. A further sum of Rs.16 lac was received on account of quarterly instalment for damages.
On May 4, 1992, a scheme was sanctioned by this High Court for amalgamation of DT with the present appellant, namely, Jasmine Commercials Ltd., with effect from April 1, 1991 and all the assets and liabilities of DT vested in the appellant with effect from April 1, 1991.
On February 1, 1993 the appellant filed the return of income for assessment year 1992-93 disclosing the receipts of the aforesaid sum of Rs.99,95,929/-, Rs.33,98,952/- and Rs.16 lac, respectively from the Consulate.
On February 28, 1995, pursuant to the return filed on February 1, 1993, the assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and in such assessment, the sum of Rs.33,98,952/- for the period April, 1991 to March, 1992 was assessed as rental income under the Head House property for the said premises. The sum of Rs. 99,95,929/- on account of arrears of rent and Rs.16 lac for building repair were assessed as business income.
On an appeal being preferred by the assessee against such order passed, the CIT (Appeal) held that the sum of Rs.99,95,929/- which admittedly represented arrears of rent could not be assessed to tax in view of the various judicial decisions and it was held that the sum of Rs.16 lac also could not be assessed as it was for damage to the house property which was a capital asset and was a capital receipt.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal of the Department by holding that sum of Rs.90 lac received for occupation by way of compensation from the Consulate was not arrears of rent but was compensation for the tenancy right during post-lease-period of 10 years. The Tribunal further held that the further sum of Rs.1 crore on account of damages to the property was also on account of further occupation of the property for a maximum period of five years and both the sum of Rs.90 lac and Rs.1 crore were for transfer of the right of tenancy which was a capital asset and was liable to be assessed as capital gains by taking the cost of acquisition as "nil". The Tribunal accordingly directed that the sum of Rs.90 lac should be assessed as capital gain and further directed that the sum of Rs.1 crore should also be assessed as capital gains even though only Rs.16 lac was assessed as business income and the matter was sent to the assessing officer for re-determination of such capital gains. It was further recorded that these two sums were not assessable under the Head Business income.
The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court contending that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in enhancing the scope of the appeal by directing the assessing officer to consider the entire amount of Rs.100 lac payable on account of repair or damages during the next five years in the assessment year in question when the dispute before the Tribunal was confined only for the quarterly instalments to the extent of Rs.16 lac and further whether the said sum could not at all be considered in the hands of the appellant.
The High Court held that –
++ taking into consideration the provision of Section 254 of the Act, an Appellate Tribunal may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. The word "thereon", is significant inasmuch as it restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject matter of the appeal. In other words, the original grounds of appeal and such additional ground, as may by raised by the Appellant by the leave of the Tribunal, constitute the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and it can adjudicate upon only those grounds and not beyond them. Even if a particular ground is not taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, an appellant may by taking leave of the appellate authority add grounds. In the instant case, however, neither in the Memorandum of Appeal any ground was taken in respect of the aforesaid Rs.100 lac nor was any amendment sought for including such ground and the learned Tribunal below even in its judgment itself while considering the questions before it, referred to only those two points excluding the question of involvement of Rs.100 lac;
++ therefore, the Tribunal below acted without jurisdiction in enhancing the scope of the appeal although the appellant did not raise any such point. On that ground alone, the portion of the order passed by the Tribunal below relating to the reassessment of Rs.100 lac should be set aside;
++ on merits - even after the expiry of the lease in the year 1981 when the property fetched no actual income, the assessing authority assessed Rs.96,000/- per annum as income from the said premises under the head-House property and compelled the assessee to pay tax thereon and it was specifically held that the notional income at the rate of rent payable under the expired lease is the appropriate income from the said premises. Such being the position, there is substance in the contention of the assessee that there was no justification of treating the amount received from the erstwhile lessee by virtue of the said agreement as the income received by the assessee from the selfsame house property during the occupation of the erstwhile tenant. When the appellant received no income from the selfsame property from the year 1981 on the expiry of the lease, it went on paying income tax on the basis of notional income and as such, the actual income arising there from subsequently, even though higher than the notional income assessed as equivalent to the rate of rent, cannot be taken note of for the purpose of assessment;
++ in this case there was no justification of treating the income arising out of the selfsame house property under a different Head after the same has been taxed as income under the head-House property on the basis of notional rent payable by the selfsame occupant;
++ similarly, it is preposterous to describe the receipts as outcome of transfer of tenancy right as the assessee was not a tenant and as such no question of gaining anything by transferring the right of its tenancy arises;
++ in the instant case, we are unable to brand the agreement between the lessor and the former lessee as a device to avoid tax inasmuch as the said agreement was entered into at the intervention of the Central Government. Moreover, having regard to the consistent views of the Supreme Court that an income already taxed under one head cannot at the subsequent period be taxed under a different head, we are left with no other alternative but to set aside the views of the Tribunal. As already pointed out that when for long 10 years no amount was received from the said property in occupation of the same occupant, the lessor was taxed on the basis of notional income; it would be illegal to tax the income from the selfsame property under a different head. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal below by affirming the order of the CIT (Appeal).
Assessee's appeal allowed
KOLKATA, FEB 18, 2011: THE issue before the HC is - Whether sum paid as compensation for occupation of a premises after the expiry of the lease and for repair or damage to the premises by the tenant can be treated as an amount received by way of consideration for transfer of any tenancy right. And the HC's answer is NO.
Facts of the case
On December 14, 1957, the premises No. 31, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, consisting of land and building was leased out by its the then owner to the Consulate General of USSR by a registered Deed of Lease for a period of 23 years commencing from January 15, 1958 at the monthly rental of Rs.8,000/- a month. The said premises was purchased by Dejoo Tea Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. on November 30, 1977 subject to the said lease dated December 14, 1957 and the lessee, namely, Consulate General of USSR, attorned the tenancy to DT and started paying rent to it.
On January 15, 1981, although the said lease granted in favour of the Consulate General of USSR expired, the lessee refused to vacate and handover possession of the said premises to the DT, as a result, DT approached the Central Government under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to institute legal proceedings against the Consulate General. As no such permission was forthcoming, various proceedings in the writ jurisdiction of this Court were taken and thereafter, the matter went up to the Supreme Court for a direction upon the Central Government to grant permission under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging inaction of the Central Government.
On March 18, 1985, an assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1982-83 (Financial Year 1981-82) assessing Rs.96,000/- as income of the said premises under the head-House property although the lease had expired and no rent was received. It was held that the income under the Head House property was required to be assessed on the notional income that could be received and the fact that the lease had come to an end and that no rent was received from the lessee was irrelevant.
An appeal preferred by the assessee against the said order of assessment was dismissed by CIT (Appeal) holding that the assessment of income under the head-House property made on the basis of notional income at the rate of the rent payable under the lease was justified in law. Assessments were also made on similar basis for the subsequent assessment years 1983-84 to 1991-92 assessing the income under the Head House property notionally on the basis of rent payable under the expired lease in respect of the said premises.
On April 2, 1991, another agreement was entered into between Consulate General and DT for payment of Rs.100 lac for repair and renovation of the said premises after getting vacant possession. It was further provided that on payment of the said sum, DT would not have any claim as to the condition of the property in which the Consulate might leave while vacating and handing over the possession and it was further recorded that during the period of possession by Consulate the damage and injuries to the properties had been caused and repairs were required and the said sum was to be paid in twelve quarterly instalments commencing from 15th January, 1992 and was meant for providing compensation fund for meeting costs and expenses for repair of the property and its restoration to the original condition after it was vacated by the Consulate.
Pursuant to the said agreement, DT received from the Consulate a sum of Rs.99,95,929/- for occupation during 15th January, 1981 to 31st March, 1991 and a further sum of Rs.33,98,952/- was received on account of occupation of the said premises for the period from 1st April, 1991 till 31st March, 1992. A further sum of Rs.16 lac was received on account of quarterly instalment for damages.
On May 4, 1992, a scheme was sanctioned by this High Court for amalgamation of DT with the present appellant, namely, Jasmine Commercials Ltd., with effect from April 1, 1991 and all the assets and liabilities of DT vested in the appellant with effect from April 1, 1991.
On February 1, 1993 the appellant filed the return of income for assessment year 1992-93 disclosing the receipts of the aforesaid sum of Rs.99,95,929/-, Rs.33,98,952/- and Rs.16 lac, respectively from the Consulate.
On February 28, 1995, pursuant to the return filed on February 1, 1993, the assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and in such assessment, the sum of Rs.33,98,952/- for the period April, 1991 to March, 1992 was assessed as rental income under the Head House property for the said premises. The sum of Rs. 99,95,929/- on account of arrears of rent and Rs.16 lac for building repair were assessed as business income.
On an appeal being preferred by the assessee against such order passed, the CIT (Appeal) held that the sum of Rs.99,95,929/- which admittedly represented arrears of rent could not be assessed to tax in view of the various judicial decisions and it was held that the sum of Rs.16 lac also could not be assessed as it was for damage to the house property which was a capital asset and was a capital receipt.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal of the Department by holding that sum of Rs.90 lac received for occupation by way of compensation from the Consulate was not arrears of rent but was compensation for the tenancy right during post-lease-period of 10 years. The Tribunal further held that the further sum of Rs.1 crore on account of damages to the property was also on account of further occupation of the property for a maximum period of five years and both the sum of Rs.90 lac and Rs.1 crore were for transfer of the right of tenancy which was a capital asset and was liable to be assessed as capital gains by taking the cost of acquisition as "nil". The Tribunal accordingly directed that the sum of Rs.90 lac should be assessed as capital gain and further directed that the sum of Rs.1 crore should also be assessed as capital gains even though only Rs.16 lac was assessed as business income and the matter was sent to the assessing officer for re-determination of such capital gains. It was further recorded that these two sums were not assessable under the Head Business income.
The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court contending that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in enhancing the scope of the appeal by directing the assessing officer to consider the entire amount of Rs.100 lac payable on account of repair or damages during the next five years in the assessment year in question when the dispute before the Tribunal was confined only for the quarterly instalments to the extent of Rs.16 lac and further whether the said sum could not at all be considered in the hands of the appellant.
The High Court held that –
++ taking into consideration the provision of Section 254 of the Act, an Appellate Tribunal may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. The word "thereon", is significant inasmuch as it restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject matter of the appeal. In other words, the original grounds of appeal and such additional ground, as may by raised by the Appellant by the leave of the Tribunal, constitute the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and it can adjudicate upon only those grounds and not beyond them. Even if a particular ground is not taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, an appellant may by taking leave of the appellate authority add grounds. In the instant case, however, neither in the Memorandum of Appeal any ground was taken in respect of the aforesaid Rs.100 lac nor was any amendment sought for including such ground and the learned Tribunal below even in its judgment itself while considering the questions before it, referred to only those two points excluding the question of involvement of Rs.100 lac;
++ therefore, the Tribunal below acted without jurisdiction in enhancing the scope of the appeal although the appellant did not raise any such point. On that ground alone, the portion of the order passed by the Tribunal below relating to the reassessment of Rs.100 lac should be set aside;
++ on merits - even after the expiry of the lease in the year 1981 when the property fetched no actual income, the assessing authority assessed Rs.96,000/- per annum as income from the said premises under the head-House property and compelled the assessee to pay tax thereon and it was specifically held that the notional income at the rate of rent payable under the expired lease is the appropriate income from the said premises. Such being the position, there is substance in the contention of the assessee that there was no justification of treating the amount received from the erstwhile lessee by virtue of the said agreement as the income received by the assessee from the selfsame house property during the occupation of the erstwhile tenant. When the appellant received no income from the selfsame property from the year 1981 on the expiry of the lease, it went on paying income tax on the basis of notional income and as such, the actual income arising there from subsequently, even though higher than the notional income assessed as equivalent to the rate of rent, cannot be taken note of for the purpose of assessment;
++ in this case there was no justification of treating the income arising out of the selfsame house property under a different Head after the same has been taxed as income under the head-House property on the basis of notional rent payable by the selfsame occupant;
++ similarly, it is preposterous to describe the receipts as outcome of transfer of tenancy right as the assessee was not a tenant and as such no question of gaining anything by transferring the right of its tenancy arises;
++ in the instant case, we are unable to brand the agreement between the lessor and the former lessee as a device to avoid tax inasmuch as the said agreement was entered into at the intervention of the Central Government. Moreover, having regard to the consistent views of the Supreme Court that an income already taxed under one head cannot at the subsequent period be taxed under a different head, we are left with no other alternative but to set aside the views of the Tribunal. As already pointed out that when for long 10 years no amount was received from the said property in occupation of the same occupant, the lessor was taxed on the basis of notional income; it would be illegal to tax the income from the selfsame property under a different head. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal below by affirming the order of the CIT (Appeal).
Assessee's appeal allowed
IFRS forms
February, 18th 2011
The government today said it will soon notify the format that companies will have to follow while preparing their account books as per the international accounting norm IFRS from next fiscal.
In an official statement, the Corporate Affairs Ministry also said that it is ready with the depreciation rates that companies will have to follow while compiling their financial statements.
"The revised Schedule VI(Format of Financial Statements), Schedule XIV (Depreciation Rate) and proposed converged accounting standards are ready and are proposed to be notified shortly," the statement said.
The Ministry also pointed out that companies will have to comply by the International Financial Reporting Standards from April 2011.
"To ensure this and to implement the G-20 commitment to achieve a single set of high quality global accounting standards, the government has taken a decision to achieve convergence of Indian Accounting Standards with IFRS in a phased manner beginning April, 2011," it said.
On industry's apprehensions about implementation of IFRS from the next fiscal, the MCA said that all the issues have been taken care of.
"The Industry has always expressed a feeling of readiness on the matter. The concerns expressed by them at various stages have been redressed through issue of suitable clarifications," it said.
According to the roadmap laid out by the Corporate Affairs Ministry, companies will have to prepare their accounts as per the new norm in a phased manner, beginning with companies that have a networth of over Rs 1,000 crore.
Further, while scheduled commercial banks and urban cooperative banks will adopt IFRS from April 1, 2013, all insurance companies will convert their opening balance sheets with IFRS from April 2012.
Large, listed non-banking finance companies (NBFCs), will converge their opening books of accounts with IFRS norms from April 1, 2013.__,_._,___
The government today said it will soon notify the format that companies will have to follow while preparing their account books as per the international accounting norm IFRS from next fiscal.
In an official statement, the Corporate Affairs Ministry also said that it is ready with the depreciation rates that companies will have to follow while compiling their financial statements.
"The revised Schedule VI(Format of Financial Statements), Schedule XIV (Depreciation Rate) and proposed converged accounting standards are ready and are proposed to be notified shortly," the statement said.
The Ministry also pointed out that companies will have to comply by the International Financial Reporting Standards from April 2011.
"To ensure this and to implement the G-20 commitment to achieve a single set of high quality global accounting standards, the government has taken a decision to achieve convergence of Indian Accounting Standards with IFRS in a phased manner beginning April, 2011," it said.
On industry's apprehensions about implementation of IFRS from the next fiscal, the MCA said that all the issues have been taken care of.
"The Industry has always expressed a feeling of readiness on the matter. The concerns expressed by them at various stages have been redressed through issue of suitable clarifications," it said.
According to the roadmap laid out by the Corporate Affairs Ministry, companies will have to prepare their accounts as per the new norm in a phased manner, beginning with companies that have a networth of over Rs 1,000 crore.
Further, while scheduled commercial banks and urban cooperative banks will adopt IFRS from April 1, 2013, all insurance companies will convert their opening balance sheets with IFRS from April 2012.
Large, listed non-banking finance companies (NBFCs), will converge their opening books of accounts with IFRS norms from April 1, 2013.__,_._,___
Supreme Court recalls law requiring PSUs to obtain COD approval
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd vs. UOI (Supreme Court – 5 Judge Bench)
Friday, February 18th, 2011Supreme Court recalls law requiring PSUs to obtain COD approval
In ONGC vs. CCE 104 CTR (SC) 31, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to set up a 'Committee on Disputes' to monitor disputes between the Government and Public Sector Enterprises and give clearance for litigation. It was held the no litigation could be proceeded with in the absence of COD approval. This was followed in ONGC vs. CIDCO (2007) 7 SCC 39 and it was held that even disputes between PSUs and State Governments would require COD approval.
In CCE vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, a 2 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the working of the COD had failed and that the time has come to revisit the law. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration.
HELD by the Larger Bench recalling its orders in ONGC vs. CCE 104 CTR (SC) 31, (2004) 6 SCC 437 and ONGC vs. CIDCO (2007) 7 SCC 39:
The idea behind setting up of the … "Committee on Disputes" (CoD) was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved, by an empowered CoD … Whilst the principle and the object behind the aforestated Orders is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation …. on same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other.
This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. We need not multiply such illustrations. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, while the same is denied by the Revenue Department. Similarly, with the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there could be overlapping of jurisdictions between, let us say, SEBI and insurance regulators. Civil appeals lie to this Court. Stakes in such cases are huge. One cannot possibly expect timely clearance by CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may result in generation of more and more litigation. The mechanism has outlived its utility. In the changed scenario indicated above, we are of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court
--
Me on net :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/
http://itronline.blogspot.com/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported
Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
HC Ruling-Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a
HC Ruling-Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a developer in the returns filed by him, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. At best, the petitioner has made a claim along with supporting documents, namely, development agreements for construction of housing projects, etc. and based upon the said documents, the AO had formed an opinion and granted deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. As to whether in a given set of facts, the assessee is a developer or a works contractor is a matter of inference. Hence, the assertion that the petitioner is a developer, without anything more cannot be said to be an incorrect disclosure of facts, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is illegal and invalid. The proceedings under section 147 of the Act which have been initiated by issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained-AIT-2011-92-HC
S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee’s claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void
Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee's claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void
For AY 2001-02 (and other years), the AO recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 22.9.05 and issued s. 148 notice on 23.9.05. The notice was sent through speed post and was not returned undelivered. Though the assessee appeared before the AO on several occasions and wrote letters, he claimed vide Affidavit that the s. 148 notice was not received by him. Pursuant to the assessee's claim, the AO issued another notice dated 25.9.06 u/s 148 and an assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 24.12.2007. The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that (i) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 23.9.05, the assessment order passed on 24.12.07 was time-barred and (ii) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 25.9.06 that it could not have been issued during the pendency of the first notice. The department argued that as the assessee had claimed that he had not received the first notice dated 23.9.05, only the second notice could be considered and if so, the assessment was valid. HELD allowing the appeal:
(i) Though the assessee claimed by affidavit that he had not received the first s. 148 notice (and that formed the basis of the second 148 notice), as the first notice was sent by speed post as permitted by s. 282, it is presumed to have been duly served upon the assessee and was valid;
(ii) There is a difference between "issue" and "service". To obtain jurisdiction to assess/reassess the escaped income, the s. 148 notice has to be "issued" but need not be "served". Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the AO but a condition precedent only to the making of the order of assessment. The word "issue" means that the notice must leave the custody of the AO and as the Post Office is not the department's agent, sending it by post completes "issue". Accordingly, though the first notice was not (according to the assessee & department) served on the assessee, the AO was vested with power to assess/reassess the escaped income (R. K. Upadhyaya 166 ITR 163 (SC) & Sheo Kumari Debi 157 ITR 13 (Pat) (FB) followed);
(iii) With regard to the second notice, as the first s. 148 notice was valid and reassessment proceedings were pending, the second s. 148 notice is a 'nullity'. Unless the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are concluded & brought to a logical end, the AO cannot issue fresh notice u/s 148. This is not an "irregularity" but a "nullity" (Ranchhoddas Karsandas 26 ITR 105 (SC) & Jai Dev Jain 227 ITR 301 (Raj) followed);
(iv) The result is that the limitation period has to be reckoned with reference to the first notice dated 23.09.05 as per which the assessment order dated 24.11.07 is beyond time.
--
Me on net :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/
http://itronline.blogspot.com/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported
Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
Reassessment [Section 147] : Decision of assessing officer may not be correct
Income-tax : Reassessment [Section 147] : Decision of assessing officer may not be correct in a case, but the same cannot be made subject matter of reopening of assessment under section 147/148 - [2011] 9 taxmann.com 272 (Delhi)
ITR 331[2]
From: GlobalIndianCAs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GlobalIndianCAs@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of CABHUPENDRASHAH
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 5:40 PM
To: GlobalIndianCAs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GlobalIndianCAs] itr 331[2]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 5:40 PM
To: GlobalIndianCAs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GlobalIndianCAs] itr 331[2]
INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)
Volume 331 : Part 2 (Issue dated 21-2-2011)
SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART
HIGH COURTS
Appeal to High Court --Delay in filing appeal--High Court can condone delay--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd . (Cal) . . . 269
Capital gains --Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 54--General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 13-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma
(Karn) . . . 211
Charitable purpose --Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer
(Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 11, 12, 12A-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
----Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 11, 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
Charitable trust --Registration--Application for registration--Delay in filing application--Assessee executing trust deed in 2000, started activities in 2005--Assessee as per advice of chartered accountant filing application belatedly--Delay to be condoned--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12AA-- CIT v. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust
(Mad) . . . 283
Commissioner --Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 32, 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 192
Income --Accrual--Non-banking financial company--Method of accounting--Mercantile system of accounting--Interest accrued on non-performing assets not recognised as income--In conformity with notification issued by Reserve Bank of India--No question of accrual of income--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Coimbatore Lakshmi Inv. and Finance Co. Ltd . (Mad) . . . 229
Income from other sources --Deduction--Interest on borrowed capital--Assessee manufacturing and exporting textiles--Funds transferred from cash credit/packing credit--Interest on such funds--Not entitled to deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 57(iii)-- CIT v. Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works (Ker) . . . 188
Industrial undertaking --Special deduction--Duty draw back --Does not form part of net profit--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IB-- Eastman Exports Global Clothing P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mad) . . . 232
Interpretation of taxing statutes --Effect of Explanation -- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd . (Bom) . . . 236
----Purposive interpretation--Casus omissus-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd.
(Cal) . . . 269
Reassessment --Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 80-IA, 147, 148-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO
(Delhi) . . . 224
----Scope of power of Assessing Officer--Law applicable--Effect of amendment of section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Assessing Officer can also assess other incomes not referred to in notice of reassessment--Power to assess such other income only if income referred to in notice of reassessment has been assessed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 147-- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) . . . 236
Recovery of tax --Hindu undivided family--Firm--Hindu undivided family or individual property--Karta of Hindu undivided family becoming partner in firm--Finding that he had become a partner in his individual capacity--Hindu undivided family properties could not be attached in proceedings for recovery of tax due by firm--Income-tax Act, 1961-- ITO v. Tippala China Appa Rao (AP) . . . 248
----Provisional attachment--Limitation--Department to show whether time extended as required under law--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 281B-- VLS Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 131
Revision --Commissioner--Assessing Officer allowing claim for depreciation without examining facts--False claim for depreciation in prior years--Order erroneous--Commissioner justified in setting aside order in revision--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 263-- CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. (Ker) . . . 219
Search and seizure --Return of seized assets--Direction not to release seized assets till assessment completed--Assessment made treating as unexplained investment of assessee--Tribunal deleting addition on jewellery--Jewellery not released on ground it did not belong to assessee alone--No proof that jewellery belonging to a third person--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 69A-- Madhu Lalwani v. CIT
(Delhi) . . . 184
Unexplained investment --Cost of construction of property--Estimate based on relevant material--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Smt. V. Gajalakshmi
(Mad) . . . 216
SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART
General Clauses Act, 1897 :
S. 13 --Capital gains--Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (Karn) . . . 211
Income-tax Act, 1961 :
S. 2(15) --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur (Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
S. 11 --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
S. 12 --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
S. 12A --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur (Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
S. 12AA --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
----Charitable trust--Registration--Application for registration--Delay in filing application--Assessee executing trust deed in 2000, started activities in 2005--Assessee as per advice of chartered accountant filing application belatedly--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust (Mad) . . . 283
S. 32 --Commissioner--Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd.
(Delhi) . . . 192
S. 54 --Capital gains--Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (Karn) . . . 211
S. 57(iii) --Income from other sources--Deduction--Interest on borrowed capital--Assessee manufacturing and exporting textiles--Funds transferred from cash credit/packing credit--Interest on such funds--Not entitled to deduction-- CIT v. Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works (Ker) . . . 188
S. 69A --Search and seizure--Return of seized assets--Direction not to release seized assets till assessment completed--Assessment made treating as unexplained investment of assessee--Tribunal deleting addition on jewellery--Jewellery not released on ground it did not belong to assessee alone--No proof that jewellery belonging to a third person--Matter remanded-- Madhu Lalwani v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 184
S. 80-IA --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA--Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
S. 80-IB --Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Duty draw back --Does not form part of net profit-- Eastman Exports Global Clothing P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
(Mad) . . . 232
S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
----Reassessment--Scope of power of Assessing Officer--Law applicable--Effect of amendment of section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Assessing Officer can also assess other incomes not referred to in notice of reassessment--Power to assess such other income only if income referred to in notice of reassessment has been assessed-- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) . . . 236
S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
S. 260A --Appeal to High Court--Delay in filing appeal--High Court can condone delay-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd . (Cal) . . . 269
S. 263 --Commissioner--Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd.
(Delhi) . . . 192
----Revision--Commissioner--Assessing Officer allowing claim for depreciation without examining facts--False claim for depreciation in prior years--Order erroneous--Commissioner justified in setting aside order in revision-- CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. (Ker) . . . 219
S. 281B --Recovery of tax--Provisional attachment--Limitation--Department to show whether time extended as required under law-- VLS Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
(Delhi) . . . 131
Volume 331 : Part 2 (Issue dated 21-2-2011)
SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART
HIGH COURTS
Appeal to High Court --Delay in filing appeal--High Court can condone delay--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd . (Cal) . . . 269
Capital gains --Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 54--General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 13-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma
(Karn) . . . 211
Charitable purpose --Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer
(Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 11, 12, 12A-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
----Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), 11, 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 12AA-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
Charitable trust --Registration--Application for registration--Delay in filing application--Assessee executing trust deed in 2000, started activities in 2005--Assessee as per advice of chartered accountant filing application belatedly--Delay to be condoned--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12AA-- CIT v. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust
(Mad) . . . 283
Commissioner --Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 32, 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 192
Income --Accrual--Non-banking financial company--Method of accounting--Mercantile system of accounting--Interest accrued on non-performing assets not recognised as income--In conformity with notification issued by Reserve Bank of India--No question of accrual of income--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Coimbatore Lakshmi Inv. and Finance Co. Ltd . (Mad) . . . 229
Income from other sources --Deduction--Interest on borrowed capital--Assessee manufacturing and exporting textiles--Funds transferred from cash credit/packing credit--Interest on such funds--Not entitled to deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 57(iii)-- CIT v. Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works (Ker) . . . 188
Industrial undertaking --Special deduction--Duty draw back --Does not form part of net profit--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IB-- Eastman Exports Global Clothing P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mad) . . . 232
Interpretation of taxing statutes --Effect of Explanation -- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd . (Bom) . . . 236
----Purposive interpretation--Casus omissus-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd.
(Cal) . . . 269
Reassessment --Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 80-IA, 147, 148-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO
(Delhi) . . . 224
----Scope of power of Assessing Officer--Law applicable--Effect of amendment of section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Assessing Officer can also assess other incomes not referred to in notice of reassessment--Power to assess such other income only if income referred to in notice of reassessment has been assessed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 147-- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) . . . 236
Recovery of tax --Hindu undivided family--Firm--Hindu undivided family or individual property--Karta of Hindu undivided family becoming partner in firm--Finding that he had become a partner in his individual capacity--Hindu undivided family properties could not be attached in proceedings for recovery of tax due by firm--Income-tax Act, 1961-- ITO v. Tippala China Appa Rao (AP) . . . 248
----Provisional attachment--Limitation--Department to show whether time extended as required under law--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 281B-- VLS Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 131
Revision --Commissioner--Assessing Officer allowing claim for depreciation without examining facts--False claim for depreciation in prior years--Order erroneous--Commissioner justified in setting aside order in revision--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 263-- CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. (Ker) . . . 219
Search and seizure --Return of seized assets--Direction not to release seized assets till assessment completed--Assessment made treating as unexplained investment of assessee--Tribunal deleting addition on jewellery--Jewellery not released on ground it did not belong to assessee alone--No proof that jewellery belonging to a third person--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 69A-- Madhu Lalwani v. CIT
(Delhi) . . . 184
Unexplained investment --Cost of construction of property--Estimate based on relevant material--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Smt. V. Gajalakshmi
(Mad) . . . 216
SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART
General Clauses Act, 1897 :
S. 13 --Capital gains--Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (Karn) . . . 211
Income-tax Act, 1961 :
S. 2(15) --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur (Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
S. 11 --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
S. 12 --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur
(Raj) . . . 174
S. 12A --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce marketing committees set up by State Government--Charitable institution entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur (Raj) . . . 174
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
S. 12AA --Charitable purpose--Charitable institution--Registration--Agricultural produce market committee--Income received to be spent for purpose mentioned--Including object of general public utility--Samiti entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (Raj) . . . 135
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Agricultural produce marketing committees--Delay in application for registration from assessment year 2003-04 due to bona fide belief that registration was not necessary and in getting approval and legal advice from Government authorities--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--"Charitable purposes", "property"--Meanings of--Samiti set up by State Government to regulate sale and purchase of agricultural produce and develop facilities for marketing of agricultural produce--Committees declared as local authorities exempted from tax till 2003--Dominant object of samitis was advancement of general public utility--Cess collected by samitis utilised for objects of samitis--Samitis entitled to registration-- CIT v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
(All) . . . 154
----Charitable purpose--Registration of trust--Market committee constituted statutorily with object of helping agriculturists and consumers--Entitled to registration--Benefit of exemption depends upon whether income utilised for charitable purpose-- CIT v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP) . . . 140
----Charitable trust--Registration--Application for registration--Delay in filing application--Assessee executing trust deed in 2000, started activities in 2005--Assessee as per advice of chartered accountant filing application belatedly--Delay to be condoned-- CIT v. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trust (Mad) . . . 283
S. 32 --Commissioner--Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd.
(Delhi) . . . 192
S. 54 --Capital gains--Exemption--Transfer of residential house and purchase or construction of a residential house within the prescribed time--Meaning of "a residential house" in section 54--Transfer of residential house and purchase of four flats in the same residential building--Assessee entitled to exemption under section 54-- CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (Karn) . . . 211
S. 57(iii) --Income from other sources--Deduction--Interest on borrowed capital--Assessee manufacturing and exporting textiles--Funds transferred from cash credit/packing credit--Interest on such funds--Not entitled to deduction-- CIT v. Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works (Ker) . . . 188
S. 69A --Search and seizure--Return of seized assets--Direction not to release seized assets till assessment completed--Assessment made treating as unexplained investment of assessee--Tribunal deleting addition on jewellery--Jewellery not released on ground it did not belong to assessee alone--No proof that jewellery belonging to a third person--Matter remanded-- Madhu Lalwani v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 184
S. 80-IA --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA--Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
S. 80-IB --Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Duty draw back --Does not form part of net profit-- Eastman Exports Global Clothing P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
(Mad) . . . 232
S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
----Reassessment--Scope of power of Assessing Officer--Law applicable--Effect of amendment of section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Assessing Officer can also assess other incomes not referred to in notice of reassessment--Power to assess such other income only if income referred to in notice of reassessment has been assessed-- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) . . . 236
S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice--Deduction allowed under section 80-IA --Initiation of proceedings on change of opinion on whether assessee engaged in manufacture--Not permissible--Assessee allowed deduction in preceding as well as subsequent years--Group company engaged in similar activity also allowed deduction--Proceedings to be quashed-- Northern Strips Ltd . v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 224
S. 260A --Appeal to High Court--Delay in filing appeal--High Court can condone delay-- CIT v. R. K. B. K. Ltd . (Cal) . . . 269
S. 263 --Commissioner--Revision--Depreciation on goodwill--Revision on ground goodwill not an asset entitled to depreciation--Goodwill valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles eligible to depreciation--Where two views are possible and Assessing Officer accepting one view which is a plausible one, not appropriate to exercise power under section 263-- CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd.
(Delhi) . . . 192
----Revision--Commissioner--Assessing Officer allowing claim for depreciation without examining facts--False claim for depreciation in prior years--Order erroneous--Commissioner justified in setting aside order in revision-- CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. (Ker) . . . 219
S. 281B --Recovery of tax--Provisional attachment--Limitation--Department to show whether time extended as required under law-- VLS Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
(Delhi) . . . 131
__._,_.___
This group is moderated by SHRI. BHUPENDRA SHAH, FCA, DISA(ICA)of Mumbai and DIPAK AGARWAL, FCA, DISA(ICA)of Guwahati. The opinion expressed here by any memebrs are of their own, and the user need to verify it from their own sources. No responsibility of any sort can be cast upon any members or the modertaor for any opinion expressed or the information posted on this group.
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
Transfer Pricing (Section 92C) - Lack of segmental reporting for re
Income-tax : Transfer Pricing (Section 92C) - Lack of segmental reporting for reason that transactions with AEs and non-AEs belong to same item of software related services, cannot be made a basis for rejecting assessee's method of computing Arm's Length Price by way of internal comparison made between transaction with AEs and unrelated parties. - [2011] 9 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi - ITAT)
Profits & gains from industrial undertakings [Section 80-IB] - Acti
Income-tax : Profits & gains from industrial undertakings [Section 80-IB] - Activity of mixing rubber with chemicals, process oil, etc., for making compound rubber by an industrial unit is covered by section 80-IB
l Compound rubber produced by the assessee on job work for the tyre manufacturing companies is an intermediary from which tyre is manufactured; if processing of iron ore which is only raw material for producing iron therefrom, amounts to manufacture or production of any article or thing then there is no reason why compound rubber cannot be treated as an article produced by the assessee though for the tyre manufacturing company under contract meaning thereby that there is nothing in the section 80-IB to indicate that article or thing produced or manufactured should be final product in itself. - [2011] 9 taxmann.com 264 (Ker.)
l Compound rubber produced by the assessee on job work for the tyre manufacturing companies is an intermediary from which tyre is manufactured; if processing of iron ore which is only raw material for producing iron therefrom, amounts to manufacture or production of any article or thing then there is no reason why compound rubber cannot be treated as an article produced by the assessee though for the tyre manufacturing company under contract meaning thereby that there is nothing in the section 80-IB to indicate that article or thing produced or manufactured should be final product in itself. - [2011] 9 taxmann.com 264 (Ker.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)