Skip to main content

Blog # 12. Half Monthly Digest (Income Tax) - July 2017

In this edition, we have analysed few orders. A very brief catch note of the related section of The Income Tax Act, 1961, indicates the contents of the order. For reading the whole order, click on the hyperlink attached with the name of the order.

S.221(1). Penalty u/s 221(1) cannot be levied on the interest component charged on “tax”.

[CIT vs. M/s. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of  2015 – Dt. 01/07/2017 – High Court of Bombay



221(1) – Penalty u/s 221(1) cannot exceed the amount of “Tax in arrears”

[CIT vs. M/s. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd.–  Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of  2015 – Dt. 01/07/2017 – Bombay High Court]

S.37(1). Predevelopment expenses which are directly identifiable with the operations and maintenance of existing business shall be treated as revenue expenses, irrespective of treatment given in the books of accounts.

[CIT VSReliance Supply Chain Solutions Ltd./ Reliance Foot Print Ltd.  – Income Tax Appeal No. 892/948 of 2014 – Dt.05/07/2017 – High Court of Bombay]



44AA. Separate books of accounts would be justified only when several distinct business are carried on and not when several business activities are carried on within the same business.

[CIT VSReliance Supply Chain Solutions Ltd./ Reliance Foot Print Ltd.  – Income Tax Appeal No. 892/948 of 2014 – Dt.05/07/2017 – High Court of Bombay]


S.68. Where the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, produced all the documentary evidences to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share applicants, addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made on the ground that the appellant could not produce share applicants in person.

[CIT VSOrchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal No. 1433 of 2014 – Dt.05/07/2017 – High Court of Bombay]


Disclaimer:  The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we have taken due care and precautions in providing accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. Errors can occur. We assume no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the contents contained herein neither does it give any guarantee of completeness, accuracy or timeliness. The information and data contained herein may be used at your sole risk after ensuring its accuracy, correctness or completeness.

Quotes : 
Everybody pities the weak, Jealousy you have to earn
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog # 26. Concept of Real Income under the Income Tax Act, 1961

  What is Income ? Before understanding the concept of Real Income, it shall be important to go through the the term “Income” and “Real”. Income is defined under S.2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The definition as provided under the Act is an inclusive definition so as to cover up all the usual as well as unusual items, however it certainly does not define it in a way that we can be said it to be precise. The same can be understood by various Judge Made Laws. The first and the lead amongst them is a Privy Council Judgment in the case of Kamakshya Narain   Singh CIT 11 ITR 513 (PC)         Facts The assesse was a “Raja” gave mining lease and He received payments by way of royalty for coal mines leased out to various lessees. The case of the Assessee was that this royalty income received by the Assessee was nothing but the recoupment of the resources which shall be exhausted by the end of the lease and thus the same was not income bu
27 comments
Read more

Reference to TPO- Law & Important Judgements

Sec 92CA provides that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) may make reference to Transfer Pricing officer (“TPO”) for computation of arm's length price (ALP) of international transaction entered into by assessee if the AO considers necessary and expedient to do so with prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Further, CBDT instruction No. 3/ 2003 made it mandatory for AO to make such reference if the value of international transactions exceeded Rs. 5 crores. Transfer pricing arena has seen many disputes revolving around making reference to TPO and powers/duties of AO and TPO around that. In a recent landmark decision in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Mumbai ITAT held that AO cannot make a reference to the TPO mechanically without applying his mind to the TP report or to any other material or information, despite CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003.The CBDT has recently revised CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003, by issuing  Instruction No. 15/2015 ,  which stated tha
Post a Comment
Read more

Discussion on purchases held Bogus

Introduction Bombay High Court in Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries v The State of Maharashtra & Others (2012) 51 VST 1 (Bom.) (HC) (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court) dealing with set off under section 48(5) and 51(7) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Issue before the court was when dealer collects the taxes and does not deposit it in the Government Treasury, can the purchased be entitled to set off of the said taxes. Validity of the provision was challenged. Upholding the validity of the provision the court held that .Section 48(5) uses the expression “actually paid” in to the Government treasury. The words “actually paid” must receive their ordinary and natural meaning. There is no reason for the court to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of these words when used in the context of section 48(5). To accept the contention that “actually paid…in the Government Treasury” should be read to mean the tax that ought t
Post a Comment
Read more