Thursday, November 10, 2011
ITR Volume 338 : Part 5 (Issue dated 14-11-2011) SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART
ITR (TRIB) Volume 12 : Part 2 (Issue dated : 7-11-2011)
ITR Volume 338 : Part 4 (Issue dated 7-11-2011)
Direct Tax Laws Nov 07
Transaction charges paid by assessee-broker to stock exchange for entering into transactions in securities/derivatives through BOLT system provided by BSE constitute 'fees for technical services' covered under Section 194J and, therefore, assessee is liable to deduct tax at source while crediting transaction charges to account of stock exchange - [2011] 15 taxmann 77 (Bombay)
Remuneration paid to partners cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s 40(b)(v) when same is not specified or stipulated in the partnership deed but has been left to be decided by a mutual agreement in future - [2011] 15 taxmann 76 (Delhi)
Where assessee challenged disallowance of commission paid to 'L' on ground that same had been shown as taxable income in return filed by 'L' - [2011] 15 taxmann 73 (Delhi)
Where assessee, a manufacturer of commutators, also received service charges on goods manufactured on sub-contract basis, and amounts on sale of copper scrap, section 80HHC deduction would also be available on latter two receipts also - [2011] 15 taxmann 72 (Karnataka)
Commission earned by assessee for supplying certain goods cannot be considered as a 'profit or gain from any business of an industrial undertaking' within meaning of section 80-IA - [2011] 15 taxmann 71 (Karnataka)
Where amount in question was received by assessee by way of account payee cheque and was repaid within a period of less than 15 days through banking channel, no addition could be made under section 68 - [2011] 15 taxmann 70 (Punjab and Haryana)
Only Competent Civil Authority, and not Commissioner of Income-tax is empowered to give findings on title/ownership over property sought to he sold for recovery of tax arrears - [2011] 15 taxmann 69 (Karnataka)
Reopening was unjustified where material relied upon therefor was available on record during original assessment proceedings - [2011] 15 taxmann 68 (Bombay)
Loan or advance given by company to shareholder in return of an advantage conferred upon company by such shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - [2011] 15 taxmann 66 (Calcutta)
Before ordering special audit under section 142(2A) satisfaction of complexity of accounts is not required to be arrived at by discussing accounts in meticulous details - [2011] 15 taxmann 65 (Allahabad)
Reopening of assessment cannot be permitted merely because Assessing Officer subsequently believes that earlier view was incorrect - [2011] 15 taxmann 63 (Bombay)
Taxability of transponder hire charges by TV Broadcasting Company - [2011] 15 taxmann 64 (Chennai - Trib.)
Compilations of case law: IT Act related Topics : LOSS FROM SPECULATION
LOSS FROM SPECULATION
Speculative transaction – if actual delivery of share scrips does not take place both for purchases as well as sales – Sec.43(5) – delivery recalled by brothers – No actual delivery – speculative transaction. – Loss can't be set off against business income.
ACIT Vs Claytone Commercial Co. Ltd. (ITAT, Delhi) 67 ITD 118
Ram Lal & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT, Asr) 71 ITD 256
Purchase of shares and sales back to them at a loss – No evidence about effective delivery of shares and payment of purchase consideration – transaction not genuine
CIT Vs Shekhawati Rajputana Trg. Co. (P) Ltd. ( Cal ) 236 ITR 950
Transaction of purchase and sale of units & Government securities by Banking Company through Banker's Receipt without actual delivery – speculative transaction
ANZ Grindlays Bank Vs DCIT ( ITAT, Del) 88 ITD 53
Shares purchased from broker on principal to principal basis and resold without taking physical delivery of shares – Loss by paying difference between purchase and sale value of shares – Speculation loss
Bhikamchand Betala and Sons Vs ITO (Gau) 294 ITR 10
Applicability of Sec. 73 - Set off of Speculation Loss - No need to prove tax avoidance
DCIT Vs Front Line Capital Services Ltd. ( ITAT, Del ) 96 TTJ 201 overruled SMC
decision in Aman Portfolio (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT
Sec. 73 and 43(5) operate in different fields - Sec. 73 applies even to shares transferred with delivery
Rohini Capital Services Ltd. Vs DCIT ( ITAT, Del ) 92 ITD 317
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs DCIT ( ITAT, Kol ) 85 ITD 745
AMP Spg. & Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd. Vs ITO ( ITAT, Ahd-SB ) 100 ITD 142
Provisions of sec. 73 explained in detail
Melville Finvest Ltd. Vs JCIT ( ITAT, Hyd ) 89 ITD 528
DCIT Vs Aakrosh Investment & Leasing (P) Ltd. ( ITAT, Mum ) 90 ITD 287
Yucca Finvest (P) Ltd Vs DCIT ( ITAT, Mum ) 101 ITD 403
Investment companies are not exempted under sec. 73
JCIT Vs Haldia Investment Co. Ltd. ( ITAT, Kol ) 85 ITD 212
RPG Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT ( ITAT, Kol – TM ) 85 ITD 105
Forward transaction – Raw materials in which transaction made must have a direct connection with goods manufactured or items sold.
Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd,. Vs CIT (Del) 95 ITR 151
Explanation to section 73 – Physical delivery of shares not relevant – Gross Total income does not consist mainly of income chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from House property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other Sources" OR assessee's principle business is not banking or granting loans and advances – Exemptions will not apply
CIT Vs Intermetal Trade Ltd. (MP) 285 ITR 536
Can the notional interest on interest free deposit received by the assessee in r
Can the notional interest on interest free deposit received by the assessee in respect of a shop let out on rent be brought to tax as "Business income" or "Income from house property"?
CIT v. Asian Hotels Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 0490 (Del.)
The assessee had received interest free deposit in respect of shops given on rent. The Assessing Officer added to the assessee's income notional interest on the interest free deposit at the rate of 18 per cent simple interest per annum on the ground that by accepting the interest free deposit, a benefit had accrued to the assessee which was chargeable to tax under section 28(iv).
The High Court held that Section 28(iv) is concerned with business income and brings to tax the value of any benefit on perquisite, whether convertible into money or not arising from the business or exercise of the profession. Section 28(iv) can be invoked only where the benefit or amenity or perquisite is other than cash. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has determined the monetary value of the benefit stated to have accrued to the assessee by adding a sum that constituted 18 per cent simple interest on the deposit. Hence, section 28(iv) is not applicable.
Section 23(1 )(a) deals with the determination of the annual letting value of such property for computing the income from house property. It provides that the annual letting value is deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. This contemplates the possible rent that the property might fetch and not certainly the interest in fixed deposit that may be placed by the tenant with the landlord in connection with the letting out of such property.
Thus, the notional interest is not assessable as business income or as income from house property.