income tax appellate tribunal order - one stop...

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER

2012-TIOL-173-ITAT -RAJKOT

Vrundavan Ceramics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Rajkot (Dated : September 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 145 – Whether suppression of turnover is sufficient to reject books of accounts, and there is no need to point out specific defect in books - Whether rejection of books and estimation of profit are two differe nt things - Whether before framing an assessment on estimated basis the results of other comparable are to be considered.

2012-TIOL-172-ITAT -KOL

Kapil Dey Vs ITO, Kolkata (Dated : November 25, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 44AF, 147, 148 - Whether there is any requirement of maintaining books of accounts when the income is computed / estimated u/s 44AF - Whether any addition u/s 69C is permissible vis-a-vis bank deposits which have direct nexus with the receipts of business.


Machinery Agencies (India) Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated : February 17, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 143(3), 263 - Whether revisionary powers can be invoked on the ground that the AO did not take the DVO's report into consideration as the same was received after the passing of the assessment order - Whether the sale consideration of a property can be substituted by market price by invoking the powers u/s 263.


M/s MD Muslim Sheikh Vs ITO, Murshidabad (Dated : November 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 69, 145 - Whether method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee can be disca rded without proving that the method followed by the assessee results in distorted profits - Whether any addition under section 69 is permissible even where the linkage of payments made to agent and material purchased has been established.

2012-TIOL-169-ITAT -MUM

Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd Vs CIT, Mumbai (Dated : March 2, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 10B, 10BB, 80HHE, 80-O, 234B, 234C - Whether as per Sec 10BB, the meaning of computer programme also includes a 'process' or 'management of electronic data' - Whether human resource service rendered in the course of development of software programme also falls within the meaning of computer programme as per amended Sec 10B and also Sec 10BB - Whether engagement of programmer and imparting training to them in the process of development and customisation of software programme is also eligible for Sec 10B benefits.

Also see analysis of the Order


ADIT, Mumbai Vs India Itme Society (Dated : December 12, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10(23C)(vi), 147, 253(4) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules - Rule 22 & 27 - Whether delay of five years in filing cro ss objections can be condoned on the ground that the assessee was not conversant with the technicalities of the proceedings before the ITAT - Whether a legal plea de hors of the filing of cross objections can be raised at any time - Whether assessment order for one year constitutes material for reopening for other years - Whether approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) once granted has to be followed blindly and the AO has no power to examine the activities of the assessee under scrutiny assessment.


Sunidhi Consultancy Services Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : January 11, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 73 - Whether in terms of provisions of explanation to section 73, loss or profit on account of valuation of shares, in the case of Company carrying on trading of shares, is speculative in nature - Whether expenses incurred on higher education of director's son, who was not taken as an employee of the company, can be claimed as business expenditure.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Tarak Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Dated : December 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28(v)(a) - Whether amount received upon complete termination of business operations is taxable as ‘Capital gain' particularly when right to manufacture is also abandoned.


M/s Trinetram Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : December 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28 - Whether contention that the shares were held as investment gets diluted when there is no evidence to show that the transactions of shares were delivery based.

2012-TIOL-164-ITAT -HYD

M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad (Dated : February 29, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 80IA - Whether benefits of Sec 80IA(4) are available only to a company and not to persons like HUF, firm and Individual - Whether when the assessee deploys its own fund and develops the infrastructure facility before handing over the same to the Govt, the assessee is to be treated as mere contractor and cannot be allowed Sec 80IA(4) benefits.



J K Tyre & Industries Limited Vs CIT, Kolkata (Dated: January 6, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 35(i), 35(ii), 35(2AA), 263 - Whether provisions of section 35(i), 35(ii) and 35(2AA) are materially different from each other and hence it cannot be said that the direction given by the ITAT in the context of 35(ii) would cover issue of other two sections also - Whether CIT can assume jurisdiction of 263 on the issue of 35(i) even though the issue of applicability of 35(ii) is pending before the CIT(A).


Kaprecon Sleeper Works Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: February 3, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 37(1) - Whether disallowance of expenses related to purchase of consumables is justifiable where the contact details of the sellers are not correct - Whether expenses incurred on the liver transplantation of one of the Directors of the Company are allowable.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs Hornic Investment P Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 40(a)(ia), 55(2), 194J – Whether the payments for VSAT, leaseline, depository and transaction charges are liable to TDS - Whether when there is no fault of the assessee for not deducting tax at source as for a long time the revenue was also of the view that no TDS was required, no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) – Whether when the membership card of the exchange is no more in existence and the card holders had been issued shares of BSE, no depreciation is to be allowed and the entire value is to be considered as the cost of acquisition of the shares.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs Shri Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (Dated: February 8, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 4, 45, 48 - Whether cost of acquisition of development rights acquired by operation of law is determinable - Whether sale of such development rights can be subjected to Income Tax.


M/s Manish Builders Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: December 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether a provision of estimated expenses is allowable deduction - Whether a builder is entitled for deduction of a provision which is made in relation to arrangement of alternate accommodation for the tenants.


MRS Rachana Sanjay Goenka Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28 - Whether frequent sale and purchase of shares alone is the sole criteria to decide the head of income accrued as a result of sale of shares - Whether ‘short term capital gain' can be taxed as ‘business income' in a case where speculative income has been offered separately in relation to speculative transactions.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s SKF Bearings India Ltd (Dated: December 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 147 - Whether profit of a unit eligible for deduction of 10A is to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income and hence loss of other non-STPI units cannot be set off with the income of eligible unit.


M/s Taurian Iron & Steel Co Pvt Ltd Vs Addl, Mumbai (Dated: December 14, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(iii), 37 - Whether merely because interest free advances are made to the sister concern, disallowance of proportionate interest is to be made necessarily - Where the assessee possesses sufficient funds on the date when advances are made - Whether punitive charges paid for overloading of goods are allowable as business expenses.

2012-TIOL-155-ITAT -DEL

ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Catholic Relief Services (Dated: January 13, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 132, 192B, 200, 201(1) & (3), 201(1A) - Limitation - Whether when non-resident assessee fails to deduct tax at source from the salary paid to its expat employees, the amended provisions of Sec 201 by Finance Act, 2009 enable Revenue to overcome the limitation of initiating proceedings even for FY ending before April 1, 2007 - Whether when decisions of some HCs are contrary to the decision in the NHK Broadcasting Corporation, even then the law laid down by the jurisdictional HC is a good law.



M/s Digiwave Infrastructure & Services Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 13, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 28(iv), 271(1)(c) - Whether it is permissible to give different colour to a transaction in different years - Whether a head of income which is applied in one year to tax an income can be changed to other head - Whether Revenue is permitted to adopt different stands on one transaction.


M/s Skypack India Pvt Vs ITO, Faridabad (Dated: December 23, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 272B - Whether mentioning of wrong PAN no of deductees in Form No 24Q is so fatal that it invites penalty u/s 272B - Whether there is any element of mens rea in such a case.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s National Cooperative Development Corporation (Dated: December 2, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(viii), 143(1), 271(1)(c) - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when there is no deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to evade taxes, and in the past, deduction has been allowed to the assessee by different AOs.


M/s Diligent Services Private Limited Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: January 6, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 28 and 45 - Whether shares which are held for long term and were shown as investment as per the resolution of board would reap LTCG and not business income even if the main business of the assessee is share trading.

2012-TIOL-150-ITAT -MUM-SB

Indusind Bank Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 14, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 32 - Transfer of Property Act - Sec 105 - Accounting Standard 19 - Whether when the lessee chooses the equipment and pays for insurance and taxes and agrees to buy the asset at the end of the non-cancellable lease period, any depreciation can be allowed to the bank financing the same and claiming it to be an operating lease - Whether for a lease to qualify as an operating lease agreement it is necessary that the total of all the rental payments should not provide for the recovery of investment with interest.


2012-TIOL-149-ITAT -MAD

ACIT, Chennai Vs M/s R R Industries Limited (Dated: February 17, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 37, 80IA(4)(iii), 194I - Whether when assessee incurs consultancy charges for IPO and valuation of property without launching a new project, even then such expenses a re to be treated as capital in nature.


ACIT, Kolkata Vs Shri Abhishek Agarwal (Dated: November 11, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10(38), 56(2)(v), 68 – Whether the surrender value of IMD bonds, received as a gift by the resident assessee from a family friend, an NRI, just by an endorsement on the back of the certificate without being accompanied by a gift deed, can be treated as a colourable transaction and shown as unexplained credit under section 68 - Whether when there is discrepancy in the date of share purchase in the contract note and the demat account, and the transaction being an off market transaction is not reported to the stock exchange, could the gain from sale of these shares, claimed by the assessee as long term capital gain, be treated by the Revenue as unexplained credit under section 68 or even as short term capital gain.


Tejinder Singh Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: February 29, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 50C, 54F, 55(2)(a), 143(3) - Whether leasehold right in a property is akin to capital asset, and thus the consideration received on surrender of such rights attracts provisions of Sec 50C - Whether merely because assessee is a party to the tripartite agreement signed on sale of the property, the receipt received by the assessee-tenant is attributable to ownership right - Whether cost of acquisition of tenacy rights is to be computed by totalling up the rentals paid and the benefits of cost inflation index for computing capital gains tax.



DCIT, Hyderabad Vs M/s Natco Pharma Ltd (Dated: February 29, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 2(14), 2(47), 45, 48(ii), 80IA(8), 80IC, 115JB, 143(3) - Whether when assessee acquires a right to convert advances given to a company into allotment of shares is property as contemplated by Sec 2(14) - Whether assessee is liable to capital gains tax on relinquishment of right to allotment of shares.


2012-TIOL-145-ITAT -MUM-SB

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Summit Securities Ltd (Dated: March 7, 2012)

Income Tax – Section 50B - Whether the negative figure of net worth has to be ignored for working out the capital gains in case of a slump sale - Whether the liabilities being reflected in the negative net worth of the assessee has to be added to the sale consideration for determining the capital gains on account of slump sale. Also see analysis of the Order

2012-TIOL-144-ITAT -PUNE

Mrs Sunanda U Chaudhary Vs ITO, Jalgaon (Dated: October 3, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 2(14)(iii)(a), 2(47A), 54B, 131, 147, 148 – Whether when assessee fails to prove that any agricultural activity was carried on the plot of land, located in proximity of the residential area, the sale of such land gives rise to capital gains - Whether when the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on the facts on record, the notice issued u/s 148 cannot be treated as invalid. Also see analysis of the Order


ASSTT/DEPUTY Commissioner Income Tax (LTU), Mumbai Vs DICGC Ltd (Dated: February 3, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 201(1) - Whether provisions of section 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) are materially different from each other as the former deals with recovery of taxes and latter for disallowance of expenses - Whether VSAT charges attract provisions of 40(a)(ia) even when the same are allowed without seeing the applicability of 40(a)(ia) in previous years.


Sharma Kajaria & Co Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: February 17, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 143(3), 194J, 199, 201(1), 203 - Whether provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) come into play only when assessee claims an expenditure under Ss 30 to 38 - Whether when the assessee raises a composite bill to its clients for providing legal services and claims reimbursement of expenses of lawyers hired, deduction u/s 194J is to be made only if assessee claims such expenses as expenditure.


2012-TIOL-141-ITAT -AHM

M/s Transpek Industry Ltd Vs ACIT, Baroda (Dated: December 12, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 40A(3), Rule 6DD - Whether amount paid in cash exceeding the limits of the section 40A(3) warrants disallowance if the case does not fall under the exception of rule 6DD - Whether additional evidences which prove the claim of the assessee deserve admission.


Puthenvila Chacko Verghese Vs ITO, Ahmedabad (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 41(1) - Whether burden to prove that any benefit has been entertained by the assessee in relation to a liability in previous year is on revenue, and hence no addition is permissible under section 41(1) without the discharge of such burden.


M/s Narayan Powertech Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Baroda (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 36(1)(vii), 40A(2), 80IB, 80HHC – Whether it is required to establish that debts have become bad to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Whether interest and duty drawback would be allowable for deduction u/s 80 IB – Whether 80IB deduction is required to be reduced for claiming deduction u/s 80HHC.


ACIT, Baroda Vs Shri Dhirajbhai B Patel (Dated: December 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 69, 132, 158BC, 158BG, 250 - Whether gold jewellery and FDRs found in a search operation could be taken an undisclosed investment by rejecting the assessee's claim that it was acquired out of his agricultural income.

2012-TIOL-137-ITAT -JAIPUR

DCIT, Jaipur Vs M/s Goenka Diamond & Jewellers Ltd(Dated: January 31, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 2, 10AA, Instruction No. 1/2006 & 4/2006 - SEZ Act - Sections 2(z), 27, 51, Rule 76 - Whether when the word 'services' is not defined either in Sec 10AA or in Sec 2 of I-T Act, it is to be understood as in the common parlance for allowing benefits - Whether trading is a service as per the SEZ Act, and since Sec 51 of the SEZ Act has non-obstante clause, it prevails over the I-T Act to allow Sec 10AA benefits - Whether trading undertaken only for re -export of imported goods is to be construed as service eligible for Sec 10AA benefits. Also see analysis of the Order


DCIT, Jaipur Vs M/s Mangalam Arts (Dated: November 4, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 10BA - Whether merely because certain manufacturing activities, because of the requirement of experts skill, are carried outside the eligible premises, on job works basis the assessee losses the deduction of 10BA, whether AO can rely on such material which has been considered by the ITAT in previous years.


ITO, Mumbai Vs Ms Revubai P Dorge (Dated: January 11, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 55A - Whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the reference made u/s 55A is invalid when the Tribunal in assessee's co-owner's case has held so.

2012-TIOL-134-ITAT -BANG

M/s Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated: November 22, 2011)

Income tax – Section 10A – Whether while computing exemption u/s 10A, the telecommunication expenses and travelling expenses incurred which are attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India has to be excluded from the export turnover as well as total turnover in accordance with clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to sub-section 8 of section 10A – Whether the exemption u/s 10A will be allowed before setting off the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of other units.


Sintex Industries Ltd Vs ACIT, Ahmedabad (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 80IA, 80IB - Whether where an assessee is operating more than one unit, and claiming deduction of 80IA and 80IB in respect of such units, interest expenses have to be allocated on the basis of Investments made in these units - Whether loss of one eligible unit is required to be set off with the profits of other eligible unit.


DCIT, Kolkata Vs Pioneer Marbles & Interiors Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 17, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 132(4), 143(3), 156, 234C, 271AAA, 271(1)(c) - Whether when assessee pays the entire tax with interest before conclusion of penalty proceedings, immunity u/s 271AAA(2) cannot be denied to him - Whether when the statute does not prescribe any time limit for payment of tax with interest, AO cannot lay down any outer limit of payment before filing of tax return. Also see analysis of the Order


DCIT, Kolkata Vs M/s Binaguri Tea Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 4, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 143(1), 254 - Whether departmental appeal having tax effect of less than Rs 3 lakhs is maintainable - Whether when assessee is engaged in the business of sale of tea, income from leasing and share business is to be assessed as business income in view of the past history of the assessee.

2012-TIOL-130-ITAT -CHD

M/s Elecon Packpet Vs ITO, Parwanoo (Dated: November 17, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 80IC - Whether when assessee files return online and the return does not reflect Sec 80IC deduction, the assessee can claim the benefit by filing revised return.

2012-TIOL-129-ITAT -COCHIN

ACIT, Trichur Vs The Kerala State Financial Enterprises (Dated: September 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 234D – Whether sec. 234D would apply, irrespective of the A.Y, and for the period 1.6.2003 onwards.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd (Dated: January 25, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether a monetary right given to a customer in the form of points is an ascertained liability, and hence assessee is entitled for deduction of such liability in the form of a provision.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 115WB - Whether expenditure which are not incurred on employees are not covered in the category of Fringe Benefits.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs Bacardi Martini India Ltd (Dated: October 7, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 35D - Whether expenses incurred by a subsidiary company on promotion of brand of parent company are allowable on deferred basis.


East Point Education Society Vs ADIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 10(23C), 11, 12, 13, 147, 148 - Whether additional grounds of appeal can be raised before the tribunal which were not raised before - Whether conversion of loan into donation and its subsequent reconversion into loan tantamount to violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) - Whether the society could be punished for the fault of governing body member - Whether depreciation on the assets attaining the objects of the trust would be allowable.


M/s Pfizer Limited Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 25, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 271(1)(C) - Whether merely because a claim of the assessee is not accepted by the Revenue, penalty is warranted in such a case - Whether when assessee claims a receipt as capital in nature on the basis of a legal opinion obtained, no penalty can be imposed merely because such a receipt is revenue in nature.


M/s National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: December 30, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 10(15), 36(1)(iii), 37, 43B - Whether the lease premium rent paid for 99 years is a revenue expenditure - Whether the prior period expenses which are crytallised during the year are not to be disallowed - Whether the expenses incurred by the assessee for consultancy and system evaluation charges for Y2K are to be treated as revenue expenditure - Whether the expenses incurred for shifting of VSAT are revenue expenditure.


ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Saidarshan Business Centres Pvt Ltd (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 22, 143(1)(a), 143(3), 147, 148 - Whether merely because the assessment in one of the years is framed under section 143(3) accepting the claim of the assessee, the AO is not empowered to change his opinion for other years in which no assessment is framed under section 143(3) of the Act - Whether income earned from letting out business centers on rent is assessable as income from house property.


Furgo Survey India Pvt Ltd Vs ACWT, Mumbai (Dated: December 30, 2011)

Wealth Tax - Sections 2(ea)(i)(3) & (5) - Whether letting out a part of business premises is exempt u/s.2(ea)(i)(3) or 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act when the assessee is not in the business of letting out properties.


Addl.CIT, Mumbai Vs ACC Limited (Dated: December 21, 2011 )

Income tax – Sections 80HHC, 80I, 115J, 154, 234A, 244A – Whether the income from management consultancy is eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC when it has no

direct relationship with the assessee's claim under section 80HHC on export of goods – Whether the deduction u/s 80I is to be allowed for the miscellaneous income which has no direct or immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking – Whether the interest u/s 244A is to be calculated on the tax refund without reducing the interest granted earlier on refund – Whether the AO is justified in denying the interest u/s 244A to the assessee on the refund due to him after giving effect to the order of the ITAT stating that the assessee had not made claims originally u/s 244A (2) and any delay on the part of the assessee should be excluded - Whether the subsidy received to the assessee as road transport subsidy for encouraging the setup of industries to promote growth in certain selected areas is to be treated as capital receipt – Whether the interest on the tax and profit on sale of fixed assets is to be excluded for the purpose of computing the book profit u/s 115J of the Income tax Act - Whether relief for deduction claimed u/s 80HHC can be denied while computing the book profits for want of audit report in form no. 10CCAC.


Intel Technology India Private Limited Vs DCIT, Bangalore(Dated: December 19, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 143(3), 147 - whether of an unit eligible for deduction of 10A is to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income and hence loss of other non STPI units cannot be sett-off with the income of eligible unit- Held Yes-Appeal of the assessee is allowed.


Surendra Overseas Limited Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: February 17, 2012)

Income tax - Sections 115V-I, 115VG, 143(3) - Proportionate basis - Reasonable basis - Whether when tonnage tax company also carries on other businesses, it is necessary for allocation of costs to take into account the use of such asset for tonnage tax business and other businesses for the purpose of depreciaton - Whether the expression 'reasonable basis' is interchangeable with 'proportionate basis' for the purpose of allocation of costs.


M/s Radials International Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28 - Whether a portfolio manger is an agent who does trading of shares on behalf of its client with a motive to earn profit, and hence the gain attributable to such transactions is a business profit and not STCG even if the client assessee has shown the transactions as investment in books and the transactions are delivery based - Whether investment in mutual funds is akin to investment made via Portfolio Manager. Also see analysis of the Order


Mr Sushil M Raney Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: December 21, 2011)

Income tax - Sec 69C - Whether any addition is warranted for unexplained expenditure even if assessee provides enough proof that the sum spent on the credit card was from the cash left with by cousin of the assessee who had visited India during that time and had left some cash for next visit.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs Grindwell Norton Ltd (Dated: January 20, 2012)

Income Tax – Sections 14A, 41(1), 43B, 80HHC, 80M, CBDT Circular No. 496 of 1987; Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Sections 38(1) to (4) - Whether prepayment of sales tax deferral is liable to tax under section 41(1) - Whether assessee's entire dividend income in an assessment year when such income was taxable, is entitled for deduction under section 80M.


M/s GMR Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 71, 143(3), 147 – Whether reassessment can be initiated on the basis of application of mind by a third party - Whether audit objection is a valid reason for the AO to reopen an assessment.


Continental Carbon India Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated : October 31, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 41(1), 68, 115JB, 133(6)– Whether when the assessing officer has accepted the books of account, stock register, purchases etc. no addition can be made merely because the summons could not be served or remained unresponded – Whether once the assessee has submitted the confirmations, PAN and addresses of the suppliers and the AO issued summons, it is the AO’s duty to ensure that the process of issue of summons is brought to a logical conclusion by enforcing summons which can be by taking action on uncomplied summoned persons, by appointing commission on the income-tax authorities having jurisdiction over them and getting the verification from their returns or accounts – Whether addition cannot be made u/s 68 for the credit balances of suppliers as on the end of each year as long as the purchase is admitted by the department – Whether while computing the book profits u/s 115JB, the doubtful debts, obsolete / non moving stores and leave encashment are to be excluded.


Apex Urban Cooperative Bank Of Maharashtra & Goa Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated : November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 80(P) - Whether when assessee was carrying on banking activities but its licence was cancelled after a court decision, assessee would still be eligible to claim the benefits of banking acitivities carried during the winding up period - Whether a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members can also be considered as a society engaged in carrying on the business of banking . Also see analysis of the Order


Mirc Electronics Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated : December 23, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 263 - Whether CIT can invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 even if the view taken by the AO is one of the possible views.


Netscape Software Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : October 19, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 68- Whether AO can solely rely on the enquiries of investigation wing to treat the share application money as ingenuine and make additions - Whether AO is bound to bring positive evidence on record to establish that the money received in the shape of share application money was actually assessee's own money particularly when the assessee has complied with all the ingredients of section 68 of the Act.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Subhkam Monetary Services Pvt Ltd (Dated : November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 45 – Whether income earned by assessee from the transaction of shares is to be taxed as business income in view of the magnitude of sale and purchase and the fact that assessee has treated these shares as investment, which cannot be ignored - Whether deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable to Inter corporate deposits (ICD) - Whether the provisions of 2(22)(e) are applicable in a case where a person is not shareholder in both the companies.


Tata Communications Limited Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated : December 21, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 80IA, 254(2) - Whether when an important issue such as whether an undertaking is separate from company and hence the date of commencement of undertaking is relevant for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA is pending before the High Court and the other issue of transfer pricing is prima-facie covered by the decision of coordinate bench, the assessee is entitled for stay of outstanding demand particularly when substantial amount has already been paid.

2012-TIOL-107-ITAT -AGRA-TM

ITO, Agra Vs Shri Lal Chand Agarwal (Dated : October, 11, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 148, 149 – Whether when the original notice for reassessment u/s 148 is issued within the time limit but the same is not served on the assessee and the notice is again issued u/s 148 after the time limit prescribed u/s 149, the order passed u/s 147 is a valid assessment as it is to be treated on the basis of the notice issued originally as service is not a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the AO.


M/s Mafatlal Denim Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : December 21, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether royalty paid to foreign collaborator for supply of technical knowhow and the use of trade mark is revenue expenditure.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd (Dated : October 14, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 14A, 80M, 143(3), 147, 234C - Whether provisions of section 80M and 10A are materially different from each other as the former allows the deduction of those expenses which are directly relatable to the dividend income and the latter debars the claim of expenses attributable to exempt income - Whether indirect expenses relatable to exempt income are required to be reduced even if assessee has not diverted any interest bearing funds - Whether after disallowing some expenses suo-motto assessee can contend that basis of disallowance adopted in that year would not apply to other year - Whether for disallowing expenses rela table to exempt income percentage of dividend earned is to be seen or percentage of total indirect expenses is to be adopted - Whether interest under section 234C is mandatory and appellate authority has no power to waive the same - Whether for the purpose of reopening there is any need of external tangible material where no assessment is made under section 143(3) of the Act.

2012-TIOL-104-ITAT -HYD-SB

ACIT, Hyderabad Vs Late Dr B V Raju (Dated : February 13, 2012)

Income tax – Sections 2(47), 28(va)(a), 45, 55(2)(a), 143(3), 148 – Whether the consideration received by the assessee under a non competition agreement which was in order to ward off competition was neither for sale of any business nor was for carrying on any business which he was carrying on, which he had transferred, and thus was not taxable under the head capital gains as was not paid for transfer of any intangible right but it was paid for “not carrying out any activity in relation to any business” and would fall within the ambit of Sec 28(va)(a) but since the provisions of Sec 28(va)(a) are not clarificatory and were applicable only prospectively from 1-4-2003, the amount will not be taxable as relating to assessment year prior to assessment year 2003-04. Also see analysis of the Order


M/s Bernhard Schulte Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs ACWT, Mumbai (Dated : December 30, 2011)

Wealth Tax - Section 2(ea) - Whether the assessee cannot claim exemption u/s. 2(ea)(i)(3) or 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act if it is not in the business of letting out properties but has let out only a part of its business premises.


Om Mitra Securities Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated : December 30, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 36(1)(iii), 73 - Whether the interest paid by the assessee is rightly disallowed by the AO treating it as utilized for making investment in the share for getting control in the group companies though as per the balance sheet the owned fund was more than the amount utilized for investment and the shares were acquired as part of its trading activity - Whether when the assessee issued NCD at the rate of interest as prevailing in the year of issuance, the interest cannot be disallowed on maturity considering it as excess as per the prevailing rate of interest on the date of maturity - Whether no addition can be made for the difference in the rate of interest on which the deposits were made in the early years and the funds were borrowed in later years - Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the liquidated damages as expenditure paid by it as per the agreement as it could not provide the office premises as per the agreement.


ITO, Mumbai Vs Pacific Holdings Pvt Ltd (Dated : November 18, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 14, 28 - Whether entries in books of account are determinative of the nature of the transaction - Whether merely because some shares were shown as stock in trade the income accrued from the sale of such shares can be taxed as business profits ignoring that intention of the assessee was of investment.


Kushal K Bangia Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated : January 31, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 2(24)(vi), 45 – Whether when assessee's housing society enters into agreement with a property developer, the cash compensation received by assessee in addition to larger flat does not fall under any of the Heads of Income in the I-T Act, and thus not taxable. Also see analysis of the Order


ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Opera Global Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 40(a)(ia), Circular No 715 of 1995 - Whether the provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) come into play if assessee fails to deduct tax at source on payments made towards reimbursement of actual freight charges paid to the airlines.


Reliance Industries Limited Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 21, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 154, 245 – Whether when adjustment of refund granted against demand of other AYs is in the knowledge of the assessee, the same issue can be challenged on the ground that the assessee was not sent intimation as per provis ions of the Sec 245 - Whether such order can be rectified u/s 154.


M/s Roshan Associates P Ltd Vs ITO, Thane (Dated: June 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 69C, 133A - Whether when the assessee has not recorded the expenses in cash in the books of account as on the date of survey and offered the same as additional income, then, can the assessee claim the said expenditure against the income offered.


Serum International Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, PUNE (Dated: September 28, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 80IA(2) & (5) - Whether, for the purpose of availing Sec 80IA benefits, the initial assessment year is the year in which the assessee commenced generating electricity from the windmill.


Priya Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 80HHC, 143(3), 147 – Whether profit portion embedded in DEPB grants is to be reduced from the cost of purchase - Whether DEPB profits are eligible for deduction of Sec 80HHC - Whether reopening of an assessment completed u/s 143 (3) is permissible when the AO. himself has allowed the deduction on these items - Whether it is not a case of change of opinion when all facts are on record and the claim of the Assessee was duly examined by the A.O.

2012-TIOL-94-ITAT -CHD

ITO, Kaithal Vs Shri Ramesh Chand (Dated: November 14, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 37, 40A(3), 133A, Rule 6DD - Whether when the assessee explained that there was no excess stock at the survey proceedings, no addition can be made merely on the basis of the additional income at the time of survey proceedings – Whether no addition on account of low household withdrawal can be made merely on estimate basis without bringing relevant material on record – Whether when the assessee could not justify any urgency or any business expediency for payment made in cash, it does not cover in exception clause (i) of the Rule 6DD – Whether when the assessee fails to justify the advance made without interest and to demonstrate any business expediency, AO has rightly disallowed the interest paid on the advances received.


DCIT, Kolkata Vs The Diamond Co Ltd (Dated: November 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 14A, 28, Rule 8D - Head of Income - Whether intention to keep the shares as investment plays important role while judging the head of income for gains attributable to sale and purchase of shares - Whether 1% disallowance of the total dividend income is justified where assessee has earned tax free income and provisions of rule 8D are not applicable.


ACIT, Noida Vs Shri Vikas Singh (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 54F - Whether exemption u/s 54F can be claimed on deposit made under Capital Gains Scheme Account when the assessee had utilized the part of the amount of the net sale consideration of residential plot for purchase of a flat.


Dy.CIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Shogun Organics Limited (Dated: June 24, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 28 (iv), 41(1) - Whether the waiver of loan in one time settlement can be taxed u/s 28(iv) when there is no dispute that loan was borrowed for investment in the capital asset and only the principal amount was waived.


Ms K Radhika Vs DCIT, Hyderabad (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 2(47)(v), 54 - Transfer to Property Act - Section 53A - Whether when the developer of the property is not willing to perform the terms of the development agreement, even then the provisions of Transfer of Property Act will apply and transaction would fall within the scope of deemed transfer u/s 2(47)(v) to attract capital gains tax. Also see analysis of the Order


M/s My Home Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Hyderabad (Dated: October 12, 2011)

Income – Sections 10(23G), 36(1), 143(3), 153A, 263 - Whether when the assessee acquires shares in a company for business benefit and not investment, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made for the interest paid for acquisition of the shares treating the income from such shares as exempt.


DCIT, Hyderabad Vs M/s News Today Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 5, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 32, 115JB, 199 - Whether withdrawal of TDS credit u/s 199 can be done if all the entries are routed properly through the books of account - Whether the gratuity can be disallowed if the assessee company actually paid the gratuity to the employees resigned during the year under consideration, out of the provision made in the earlier years - Whether for the purpose of section 115JB, depreciation as per the Companies Act is only to be considered.


Akzo Nobel India Ltd Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: January 6, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 147 - Whether Departmental valuation report can be treated as material for forming reasonable belief vis -à-vis escapement of income - Whether an assessment completed under section 143(3) can be reopened after four years without recording that income has e scaped assessment because of the failure of the assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly - Whether in the garb of reassessment AO can review his order passed u/s 143(3).


ITO, Kolkata Vs The Premier Medical Supplies & Stores (Dated: October 28, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 143(3), 192, 194H - Whether any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made when the assessee has deducted TDS u/s 192 on commission paid to its Directors and not u/s 194H.


M/s Diamond Tool Industries Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 2, 2012)

Income Tax - Sections 40A(2), 80IB, 143(3) - Whether interest received and sales tax incentive can be considered as derived from the business for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB.


Smt Damyanti C Vora Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 24 - Whether notional rent can be brought to tax when the assessee, who is the owner of two flats occupies both the flats as a single unit for the purpose of residence of his family members - Whether deduction of 30% for repairs and maintenance charges can be allowed when the rent receipts are in respect of the use of table space given and the assessee has shown the same under the head “income from other sources”.


Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: December 28, 2011)

Income tax – Capital Gain – Whether when the interest is paid as per the order of the Supreme Court on buy back of shares as a compensation for the loss due to the delay in payment by the acquirer, the same cannot be treated as part of sale consideration while computing the capital gain.


M/s Bluplast Corporation Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia), 131, 133, 194C - Whether interest on the amount advanced to the company by the assessee firm through its partners would be allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) - Whether there would be any default in payment of interest without deducting TDS in case form 15H is obtained - Whether unexplained cash credits would be allowable as deduction.


ACIT, New Delhi Vs Shri Om Prakash Arora (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 143(1) & (2) - Whether even if the assessee undertakes frequent transactions of sale and purchase of shares, if the principal is investment, the bonus would also remain investment, and the income earned from their sale is to be treated as capital gains and not business profits.



M/s Punjab National Bank Vs Addl.CIT, New Delhi (Dated: October 25, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 10(23G), 41(1) - Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(23G) based on the certificates issued by the enterprises to whom the moneys were lent – Whether the amount which is due from one branch to another is transferred to the reserve account as per the guidelines of the RBI in order to reconcile the differences cannot be treated as the income of the assessee as no person can make profit to himself by the transactions with the self – Whether when the revenue could not prove that the assessee had claimed the amount as deduction in past, no addition can be made u/s 41(1) of the Income tax Act.


M/s S E Investments Limited Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 1, 2011)

Interest Tax - Sections 2(7), 10 - Whether reopening of an assessment on the basis of finding of the tribunal is permissible - Whether a loan transaction is different from a hire purchase transaction, in as much as the ownership of the asset in the former would remain with the user and the ownership vests with the financier in latter transaction and hence income accrued in a loan transaction is chargeable to tax under the provisions of Interest Tax Act.


Wig Investments Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 2(22)(e), 143(3), 263, Circular No 4 of 2007 - Whether when AO fails to examine the fund transfer to the assessee from a company in which it was a partner, for the purchase of shares, as per the provisions of Sec 2(22)(e), it is a fit case for invocation of powers u/s 263.


Zauri Investment Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: October 11, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 14A 251 - Whether after 1.6.2001 the CIT(A) has no power to set-aside the matter before the AO and hence the order of CIT is vitiated - Whether evidence which has impact on the working expenses relatable to exempt income should not have been admitted by the CIT(A) suo-motto and hence matter requires fresh consideration.


ADIT, New Delhi Vs Shri Rajeev Ajmani (Dated: January 13, 2012)

Income Tax – Sections 48, 49(1), 55(1), 143(1), 148 – Whether when the assessee inherits property after the demise of his mother, he is entitled to claim cost of improvement incurred by his mother for the purpose of computation of long-term capital gain. Also see analysis of the Order


Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn Ltd Vs ITO, Gandhinagar (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 56, 115JB, 143(3), 263 - Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be set-off against income from other sources - Whether an order of assessment which is passed without making any enquiry on certain issues is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Prakash Atlanta Joint Venture (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 143(3), 145A, 147, 148 – Whether when there is no fresh material on record and also the fact that the AO had disallowed excess modvat credit, reassessment can be initiated to disallow the same amount again.


DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Schwing Stetter India Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 12, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 143(3), 145A, 147, 148 – Whether when there is no fresh material on record and also the fact that the AO had disallowed excess modvat credit, reassessment can be initiated to disallow the same amount again.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Adam Exports (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 37, 68, 133(6), Rule 46A - Whether AO can easily escape from his obligation of enquiring the confirmation of the creditors for the want of phone numbers in those confirmation - Whether when AO himself has issued letter of enquiries to some parties, identity of the parties cannot be doubted - Whether any addition can be made when ponderous evidences are on record in the form of bank statement, audited books alleging that the purchases were bogus.


Shri Shabbir T Chass Vs DCIT, Hyderabad (Dated: November 22, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 139, 153A, 263, 271(1)(c) - Whether while scrutinizing the issue of limitation vis -à-vis passing of an order of penalty the date on which the order is passed is relevant or the date on which the order is received by the assessee is relevant - Whether mere delay in service of an order would make it belated - Whether immunity given under clause (2) of explanation 5 of section 271(1)(C) is restricted to the return filed on due date and not available to the returns filed after search disclosing additional income.


Satco Securities & Financial Services Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 73, 147 - Whether valuation of stock is a separate source of income - Whether loss resulting from valuation is to be considered under the head business income - Whether loss accrued to an assessee whose part of business is sale and purchase of shares is speculative loss.


DP World Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 20, 2012)

Income Tax - Section 115WC - Whether when assessee takes accommodation on rent after paying huge security deposits for its CMD, FBT is leviable on notional interest payable on security deposits. Also see analysis of the Order


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Metropolis Health Services (India) Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 132, 271(1)(c) - Whether the amount which was neither added nor disallowed in computing the total income of the assessee can be treated as the income in respect of which particu lars have been concealed for the purpose of computing penalty u/s 271(1)(c).


M/s Millennium Telecom Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income tax – Sec 80IA, 143(3) – Whether deduction u/s 80IA would be allowable for provision of E-tendering services.


Reliance Capital Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10(23G), 10(33), 14A, 35D - Whether income arising from leasing activity is akin to income of an undertaking and hence expenses incurred on public issue are allowable u/s 35D of the Act - Whether any disallowance of interest expense is permissible when assessee has deployed his own funds in the investments.


M/s Tanna Agro Impex Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: July 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 194H – Whether when the hedging transactions of commodities are in the nature of derivatives transactions, any TDS obligation arises on brokerage charges paid.


Smt Shakuntala Devi Vs DDIT, Bangalore (Dated: December 20, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 22, 23(1)(a) & (c), 143(1), 234B, 234C - Whether when non-resident Indian assessee's property had remained vacant during the year, would it be assessed at NIL value under section 23(1)(c) or under the deeming provisions of section 23(1)(a), whereby the annual letting value of the property would be worked out. Also see analysis of the Order


ACIT, Mumbai Vs Savita N Mandhana (Dated: October 7, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28(va) - Whethe when assessee jointly with other family members transfers entire shares to non-resident purchaser, and the payment is also made by enforcing a non-compete agreement, the consideration received is required to be bifurcated attributing a part to non-compete fees - Whether such split up income is to be taxed as business income or entire consideration is to be taxed as capital gains.



ACIT, Faridabad Vs Shri Jeetender Gupta (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 194H, 251 - Whether additional evidence based on some supporting material like a certificate from a Govt agency certifying happening of an event is admissible - Whether under mercantile system of accounting the credit of TDS is directly proportional to the accrual of income - Whether a matter which has been decided by the CIT(A) after seeking comments of AO on additional evidences can be restored to the AO merely because the powers of CIT(A) are co -terminus and he could not conduct enquiries on those evidences.


M/s D & M Components Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 2, 2011)

Income tax – Sec 111A, Circular No.4/2007 – Whether frequent purchase and sale of the shares shown as investment would be treated as business activity.


M/s Coimbatore Cable Net Private Limited Vs ACIT, Coimbatore (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income tax – Section 263 – Whether when the AO believed the nomenclature given in the balance-sheet and simply accepted the claim of the assessee that the surplus was Long Term Capital Gain without application of mind and the facts on record and the professional charges were partly disallowed for non-deduction of tax at source without examining the evidence of the expenditure incurred, CIT has rightly initiated the proceedings u/s 263.


Madhya Gujarat Vij Co Ltd Vs ITO, Petlad (Dated: July 8, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 201(1A), 201(1) - Whether provisions as contemplated in section 201(1A) imposing interest on defaulted TDS are mandatory and independent of the levy of charge under section 201(1) of the Act - Whether words “without prejudice” as used in section 201(1A) of the Act segregate section 201(1A) from section 201(1) of the Act.


Dr K Praveen Kumar Vs ACIT, Mysore (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 158BC - Whether assessment of an individual is permissible when the warrant of authorization is in joint names.


ICAI Accounting Research Foundation Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 12AA (3) - Whether providing assistance to a Govt agency, exclusively, in improving its accounting system is a research activity of the educational nature and hence assessee is entitled for registration of 12A particularly when the DIT exemption has granted approval of 10(23C)(iv) in subsequent year.


ITO, Patan Vs M/s Moon Travels (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 68, 40(a)(ia), 194C, 194I – Whether hiring of vehicles would amount to contract u/s 194C - Whether TDS would be deducted on any payment made for hiring vehicles for business purposes.


M/s Mind Tree Ltd Vs CIT, Bangalore (Dated: September 26, 2011)

Income tax – Section 263 – Whether when there is nothing on record that the AO has examined the correctness of the claims made by the assessee but allowed the same, such a case warrants invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263.


ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Girija Colonisers (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income Tax – Section 80IB(10) - Whether when assessee has filed its application for obtaining completion certificate in time, it can still be denied Sec 80IB(10) benefits merely because it received the certificate beyond the prescribed period.


Sikkim Manipal University Vs ACIT, Sikkimd (Dated: November 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 10(23C)(iiab), 12A, 148 - Whether for the purpose of 10(23C)(iiab), the grant received from the State Govt is to be seen in aggregate over the years or to be considered in year-wise manner - Whether Revenue can play hot and cold by assuming an entity as Govt aided agency at the time of approval of 10(23C)(vi) and not a Govt-aided agency while granting relief under section 10(23C)(iiab).


DCIT, Kolkata Vs N V Exports Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 32(i)(iia) - Whether in view of the definition of ‘manufacture' as envisaged in the Finance Act 2009, every process which brings in a commercial and geometrical change in the article is manufacturing - Whether process of conversion of semi-finished blade into finished blade and then packing of the same amounts to manufacturing - Whether additional depreciation is permissible on new machine.


ITO, Kolkata Vs M/s Link Consultants Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 197A - Whether onus to deduct TDS on payment of interest disappears, when payee submits form 15G as prescribed under section 197A of the Act.


Bypass Properties Private Ltd Vs ITO, Kolkata (Dated: December 7, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 2(47) 269UA (f) - Whether receipt of interest-free securities in lieu of 21 year hassle free possession amounts to transfer and lease receipts are taxable as income from other source.


ITC Limited Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: November 18, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 14A, 40A(9), 40(a)(ia), 194H, 194J, Rule 8D – whether staff welfare expenses would be allowable w.r.t sec 40(A)(9) – Whether TDS would be liable to be deducted on commission paid to whole time directors.


ITO, Hardwar Vs Indian Oil Corporation (Dated: November 16, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 194C, 194I, Circular Nos 681 of 1994 & 558 of 1990 – Whether when the agreement is essentially for transportation of bulk petroleum products and not for hiring of tank trucks, the tax is liable to be deducted u/s 194C and not u/s 194I.


Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 80I - Whether criteria of eligibility vis-à-vis deduction of chapter VI is required to be examined in the initial year itself and therefore, the Revenue cannot deny deduction in subsequent year if the deduction granted in initial year has not been withdrawn.


Exide Industries Limited Vs DCIT, Kolkata (Dated: October 21, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 143(3), 147, 148 - Whether, after four years, action under section 147, can be initiated in a case where earlier assessment was completed u/s 143 (3) and there is no failure of assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly - Whether in cases where action has been initiated within two years any assessment can be reopened where no opinion is formed by the AO during assessment.


Mrs Bertha T Almeida Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 45, 47(1), 54F - Whether even if legal title has not passed to the transferee, the transaction shall still be regarded as the transfer where the property is handed over in part performance of the agreement - Whether when the assessee has received the cash payment but also the right to allotment of a flat but the same was allotted at the time of filing the return, the same is not to be taken into consideration for computation of capital gains - Whether when the assessee receives a sum in lieu of the right to allotment of a flat, such sum is to be treated as interest income and not to be offered to tax - Whether assessee can claim exemption u/s 54F on two different property purchased.


Shri Mithalal N Sisodia HUF Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: August 5, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 54F, 131, 271(1)(c) - Whether when the assessee surrenders the sale of shares sold and the exemption claimed u/s 54F in order to avoid litigation though the supporting documents were available on record, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) particularly when the AO fails to prove that bogus LTCG was being declared to claim benefits of either exemption or lower rate of tax.


Pharmacia Healthcare Limited Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: August 5, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 115JA, 115JB, 145A, 147, 148 - Whether when the assessee's return has originally been processed u/s 143(1) and there was no regular assessment made, AO is justified in reopening the assessment if he notices that certain items were not added by the assessee while computing the income - Whether the provision for doubtful debts being the provision made for diminution in the value of assets is liable to be added for the purpose of computing book profit - Whether while making adjustment in the closing stock on account of any duty or tax, the opening stock is also required to be adjusted as only making adjustment in closing stock is not in accordance with the provisions of section 145A.


Sumitomo Chemical India Private Limited Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 28, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 131, 271(1)(c) - Whether when the assessee tried to justify a wrong claim of commission which was accepted as not correct stating that it was mistakenly claimed after the investigation was started by the AO through DDI (Invt), penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was rightly made.


DCIT, Kolkata Vs M/s Madhusudan Investment & Trading Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: October 14, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 2(22)(e), 143(2) & (3), 263 - Whether refundable security received on letting out a premise is akin to deemed dividend - Whether for adding an amount as deemed dividend the person must be beneficial and registered shareholder - Whether the expression such shareholder used in amended provisions of section 2(22)(e) refers to the persons controlling the affairs of both the companies.



DCIT, Kolkata Vs Smifs Capital Markets Ltd (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 143(3), 271(1)(C) - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(C) is leviable where an assessee duly substantiated it's explanation vis-à-vis omission to include certain income and his explanation could not be found to be false by the Revenue - Whether conditions namely concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are required to be satisfied before the imposition of penalty.


Mr Vijay Ramchandra Shirsth Vs ACIT, Nashik (Dated: September 29, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C - Whether when the assessee is debarred by the clauses of the agreement from sub-contracting the work contract undertaken, mere engagement of certain persons for execution of part of the works without delegating any risks is to be treated as sub-contracting - Whether provisions of Sec 194C are applicable in such a case - Whether onus to prove that the assessee subcontracted its work is on the Revenue.

2012-TIOL-38-ITAT-MUM

M/s Tolaram & Co Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 19, 2011 )

Income Tax - Section 80IB - Whether receipts such as development charges, car parking charges and door security charges are inextricably linked with the housing projects and hence entitled for deduction of 80-IB - Wether proportionate disallowance of common expenses deserves disallowance while computing deduction of 80-IB - Whether the order of AO requires fresh consideration where there is double disallowance of an item.


Tropicate Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 10B(3) - Whether, de-facto commencement of business has to be seen for judging the period of tax holiday - Whether an assessee who is already enjoying the tax holidays can further enjoy the extended period if the available period has not been completely consumed.


M/s Orbit Ventures & Co Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 14, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(iii), 36(2), 37(1) - Whether when assessee purchases development rights for a construction project and writes off certain payments as bad debts for extra land space detected after five years, and that too without filing any claim, the same is to be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) - Whether such payment can be allowed as business expenditure as an alternative claim - Whether disallowance of notional interest is permissible where there is a nexus between the interest bearing funds and their interest free advancement.



M/s Vishal Containers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Patan (Dated: October 7, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 47(xiii) - Whether there is violation of proviso (c) of clause (xiii) of Section 47 when the partnership firm is conve rted into company and the partners credit balance lying in the account and their capital is converted into loan and which was repaid to them.


M/s Jhaveri Industries Vs ACIT, Vapi (Dated: October 20, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 28 - Whether presence of negative stock in certain months raises a presumption that accounts of the assessee are not reliable and hence rejection of the same is justified - Whether even after rejection, a fair and reasonable estimate has to be made for the income of the assessee.


ACIT, Ahmedabad Vs M/s CMC Machinery (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 40A(2) - Whether provisions of section 40A(2) can be invoked dehors, without the support of comparable cases and cogent evidences.


Adani Agro Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Ahmedabad (Dated: November 21, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 263 - Whether the unabsorbed loss of speculative business is available for set-off after four years - Whether when AO allows set-off of such losses against current year profits, involcation of revisionary powers u/s 263 is sustainable.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Lafarge India Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 32(1), 36(1)(iii), 43(1) – Whether when assessee acquires a running cement plant in a slump sale, if the price paid for the assets is more than book value of assets in the hands of the seller, the excess is to be attributed to goodwill - Whether depreciation is to be allowed by taking WDV as per books of seller as cost of acquisition of assets in the hands of the assessee - Whether when the seller and the purchaser are not related parties, even then valuer's report is to be rejected alleging collusion in the deal - Whether the one time settlement premium paid to financial institutions in consideration for reduction in the interest rates is allowable as revenue expenditure in the year of expenditure.



Chemical Process Equipments Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 24, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 271(1)(C) - Whether merely because the AO fails to delete the irrelevant expressions in the penalty notice, the penalty proceedings get vitiated and deserve to be quashed - Whether in view of the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the nature of debts provided to its sister concern the penalty is rightly invoked.



Mrs Manju Raja Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 143(3), 154, 263 - Whether CIT(A), confirming the AO's order, is justified not to consider the rectification order passed by the AO reducing the total disallowance against the assessee.


R D Builders Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: October 21, 2011)

Income tax – Section – 251(2) - Whether CIT(A) is mandatorily required to issue show cause before enhancing the assessed income.


M/s Bosch Limited Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 07, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 17(2), 115WB - Whether the expenses incurred by the employer towards medical reimbursement to the employee, which is exempt under clause (ii) of proviso to section 17(2) as a perquisite, is liable to be taxed as fringe benefit as privileges, service facilities or amenities as per section 115WB.


Star India Limited Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 80HHF, 263 - Constitution of India - Art 141 - Whether revisionary powers can be invoked without pointing out any flaws in the order of the AO - Whether legal position on an issue is to be seen at the point when revision order is passed, and not when assessment order is passed.


2012-TIOL-25-ITAT -BANG-SB

M/s Nandi Steels Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: December 9, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 71, 72, 143(1), 147, 148 – Whether the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the income from capital gains – Whether only the income which is earned by carrying on business is entitled to be set off in future years – Whether the long term capital gain on transfer of business assets assumes the character of business income and therefore, business loss brought forward from earlier years can be set off against such income though, it was not computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.



ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Times Academy Limited (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 68, 144 - Whether documents filed as additional evidence before CIT(A) vis-à-vis receipt of share application money requires fresh consideration if some of the documents which go to the root of the matter have not examined by the department.


Addl.CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Religare Finvest Ltd (Dated: September 16, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 40A(2)(b), Circular 6P of 1968 - Whether merely because obtaining usecured loans is time-saving, not much paperwork and no guaranee, assessee is justified to pay higher interest rate to its associated enterprise.


GE India Exports Private Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: July 15, 2011)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether provisions made for warranty on the basis of some reasonable and scientific method is allowable.


DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s First India Corporation (Dated: December 12, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 10A, 80HHE, 70, 71, 115JB – Whether loss of eligible undertaking u/s 10A would be allowable to be set off against income from non eligible undertaking and other sources – Whether 10A shall apply due to failure to furnish declaration for its non-applicability – Whether provision for gratuity would be allowable in computing profits u/s 115JB.


ACIT, Hyderabad Vs M/s Annapurna Builders (Dated: October 10, 2011)

Income tax – Section 80IA – Whether since the assessee has developed the industrial park duly approved and notified by the Central Government and the same has not been withdrawn for any reasons, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii).


SRL Ranbaxy Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C, 194H – Whether when assessee provides lab testing services to sample collection centres on non-exclusive basis, provisions of Sec 194H wll not apply to discount offered as there does not exist a principal-agent relationship between them - Whether when the assessee has not paid or credited any amount to the account of the collection centers, section, provisions of Sec 194H will not come into play.



M/s Rajchandra Capital Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: September 21, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(2) - Whether the assessee is required to establish that the debt advanced by the assessee has become irrecoverable for the purpose of Section 36(1)(vii) - Whether the amount receivable by the assessee, who is a share broker, from his clients against the transactions of purchase of shares on their behalf constitutes debt.


Mr Sudhir S Chhajed Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income Tax- Section 36(1)(iii) - Whether before making proportionate disallowance of interest it is incumbent upon the AO to examine the utilization of borrowed funds and if it found that the same are not used for the purpose of business disallowance can be made.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s J K Investo Trade (India) Ltd (Dated: December 16, 2011)

Income tax – Non-Compete Fee – Year of Accrual - Whether the non-compete fee which is accrued to the assessee by an order of the High Court for arrangement between the assessee and the purchaser u/s 391 r.w.s 394 of the Companies Act in the financial year 1997-98 though the arrangement was effective from 1st July, 1996, cannot be taxed in the AY 1998-99 as the right to receive the said compete fee accrued to assessee in assessment year 1997-98 even though it has been received by assessee in the assessment year 1998-99.


M/s ITD Cementation India Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 144, 145 - Whether AO can reject books of account without recording any findings relating to infirmities in the books.


ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Stup Consultants Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 25, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 194C, 194I, 201, 201(1A) - Whether use of vehicle is not hiring of vehicle, and hence the payments made for the use of vehicles attracts the provisions of section 194C and not 194-I.


ITO (TDS), Meerut Vs CCS University (Dated: December 30, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 194J, 201(1A) - Whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS on the payment made by it as advance to the coordinators of various colleges for conducting the examinations - Whether when the assessee has not submitted details in the assessment proceedings, the CIT (A) is not correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee admitting the additional evidences without giving the assessing officer an opportunity.

2012-TIOL-12-ITAT -CUTTACK

M/s S V Industires Vs ITO, Cuttack (Dated: September 23, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 44AD, 144 - Whether denial of depreciation claim and partners' remuneration is justified while computing income u/s 44AD - Whether rejection of audited books is justified when no defect has been pointed out in books and the figures disclosed in books are accepted in toto for the purposes of section 44AD.


M/s Jeet Construction Company Vs ACIT, Meerut (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 132, 143(3), 158BD, 158BB(1) - Whether ground relating to assumption of jurisdiction under section 158BD can, for the first time, be taken in the second round of litigation - whether completion of assessment proceedings in the case of searched person is sine qua non for initiating action under section 158BD - Whether for judging the correct date of notice of 158BD typographical errors should be ignored - Whether combined satisfaction, when the searched persons are more than one, can be recorded for initiating action under section 158BD - Whether undisclosed income unearthed during search can only be added under chapter- XIV-B.



M/s Varun Shipping Company Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 14A, 115VA, 115JB - Whether for attracting rigours of sec 14A it is sine qua non that income must be computed under the provisions of section 28 to 43C and thus the provisions of section 14A are not applicable to cases where tonnage tax is applied - Whether provisions made in P& L account while computing book income u/s115VP are not includable in book profits u/s 115JB.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Tata Asset Management Ltd (Dated: August 5, 2011)

Income tax – Section 37(1) – Whether the scheme related expenses incurred by an asset management company on marketing, advertisement and others, brokerage and incentives are allowable expenses u/s 37(1) – Whether the assessee is entitled to a legal claim even though the same is not claimed in the original return as well as in the revised return of income as the AO is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Wockhardt Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 35(2AB), 41(1) – Whether when assessee engaged in clinical trial incures expenses on trials conducted outside in-house R&D facility, such expenditure is also eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Whether no addition

can be made u/s 41(1) for considering the cessation of any liability, merely on the basis that the period of limitation of three years has expired.



JRM Steel Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: October 31, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 143(1) & (3), 148, 254 - Whether AO has power to trigger those issues, in de-novo proceedings, which had been decided in favour of assessee by CIT (A) and were not agitated by the revenue before the ITAT in the first round - Whether any addition can be made on the basis of third party statement particularly when a direction has been given by the ITAT to provide an opportunity to assessee to cross examine the third party.


Chandramohan C Tipnis Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: September 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 41(1), 68, 133(6) - Whether credits introduced in one year can be assessed as income u/s 68 in another year.


M/s CCL Products (I) Ltd Vs DCIT, Hyderabad (Dated: December 14, 2011)

Income tax - Sections 10B, 263, Circular No 1 of 2005 – Whether when AO fails to take notice of the relevant Board Circular, it warrants invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 - Whether the period for claiming Sec 10B benefits is to be reckoned from the date of commercial production - Whether such benefits are available also on expansion of the existing undertaking.


M/s Connor Information Technology Ltd Vs ITO, Hyderabad (Dated: September 16, 2011)

Income tax – Sections 10B, 37 – Whether the turnover of the assessee would also include the sum in the invoice not accepted and paid by the customer - Whether the amount reimbursed for the expenditure incurred outside India should be deemed to be received in India for the purpose of Section 10B – Whether the expenses incurred for consultancy for expansion of business is allowable as revenue expenditure.


DCIT, Ahmedabad Vs Corrtech International (P) Ltd (Dated: October 25, 2011)

Income Tax – Sections 28, 32, 37 – Whether for allowing an expense as revenue, the nature of expense has to be seen in the light of the first principle of accounting and hence expenses incurred on TV, Refrigerator, Office Table, which are required to be capitalized as per first principle are not allo wable - Whether under the provisions of the IT Act only those expenses which are attributable to some income are allowable - Whether for claiming depreciation evidence vis -à-vis acquisition of assets and exploitation of assets is a condition precedent.


ACIT, Ajmer Vs Shree Cement Ltd (Dated: September 9, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 2(24), 28, 115JB - Whether while judging the nature of a receipt ‘purpose test' would have to be considered and this test would prevail over the other tests - Whether sales tax incentive which are directly relatable to setting up of new unit or expansion of running unit are capital receipts - Whether a capital receipt which is not chargeable as income under section 2(24) is also not



ITO, Bangalore Vs M/s Information Technology Park Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2011)

Income Tax - Sections 22, 80IA, 147, 148 - Whether the clauses of MOA are to be seen to adjudge whether the income earned from the exploitation of commercial property is assessable as business income or rental income - Whether for deducing the correct head of income earned from properties, certain aspects such as maintenance of property and arrangement of amenities are to be taken into consideration - Whether findings recorded in the assessment order of subsequent year are tangible material which can be the basis for reopening of assessments completed u/s 143(3).

income tax appellate tribunal order - one stop...

Documents