CIT vs. C. Sugumaran (Madras High Court)
S. 2(47)(vi): A Power of Attorney which does not enable
enjoyment of property does not result in a "transfer". CBDT Circular
No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted
(i) There is no transfer to or enabling enjoyment of
property in favour of the assessee in any manner and therefore, sub-clause (vi)
of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not get attracted. Clause 21 of the
power of attorney, which has been already referred to supra, clearly reveals
that no consideration was […]
Cochin Stock Exchanges Limited vs. CIT (Kerala High
Court)
S. 2(47)(v): Execution of a Power of Attorney in favour
of the builder constitutes part performance u/s 53A of TOP Act and a
"transfer" for capital gains
(i) On a reading of the above provision itself, it is
clear that possession of the property has been handed over to the builder
immediately on receipt of the first installment of the payment from the
builder. As per clause (3), the total consideration is mentioned as
Rs.8,83,50,400/- and Rs.3,00,00,000/- was to be paid as […]
ACIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd (Allahabad High
Court)
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure attributable to a
taxable business cannot be disallowed. Expenditure on creating assets which do
not belong to the assessee is revenue expenditure
(i) Once it was duly established that no borrowed funds
on which interest was paid had been invested for earning tax free income, no
disallowance was permissible under Section 14A. The Tribunal has observed that
under Rule 8D(2)(ii), a proportionate disallownace out of interest expenditure
would be made in respect of interest expenditure which is […]
DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty initiated without specifying
whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars is
invalid
(i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state
whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by
the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished
by the assessee. There are two different charges i.e. the concealment of
particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of […]
Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide
"wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim
The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation
claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been
accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue
further. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty
proceedings, it is seen that repeatedly it is claimed […]
CIT vs. Shri Girija Smelters (P) Ltd (Andhra Pradesh High
Court)
An ITO cannot carry out the functions of an authority
under the Central Excise Act and arrogate to himself the power to determine the
quantity of production, or the intricacies of the manufacturing process. He
must seek assistance of the concerned authority
(i) Even where the authorities of the Central Excise
Department doubt the accuracy of figures mentioned in the registers, or if they
find it difficult to understand the complexity of the manufacturing process,
they seek the help of the experts. Sometimes experts are on the rolls of the
department itself, and on the other occasions, […]
ITO vs. Narinder Kaur Bhatia (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 54: Purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner in a
new flat constitutes a "purchase" & is eligible for exemption
(i) The assessee purchased a residential flat on
08.01.1981, which was sold on 07.02.2007 for a sale consideration of
Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The long term capital gain on such sale amounted to
Rs.1,14,63,650/-. Before the said sale, assessee had entered into an agreement
to purchase a residential flat, being flat no. 501 Elegant Orchid at Santacruz
(west), […]
No comments:
Post a Comment