Delhi & District Cricket Association vs. DIT (E)
(ITAT Delhi)
S. 11 (charity) and 12AA (cancellation of registration): Important propositions of law laid down
s.12AA(3) has no retrospective effect as it is neither explanatory nor clarificatory in nature and the CIT has no power to rescind the order passed by the CIT prior to 1st Oct.2004. For an assessee to be classified as charitable under the residuary category i.e. “advancement of any other object of general public utility” u/s 2(15) of the Act, the following four factors have to be satisfied
Mylan Laboratories Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
(i) ALP of interest on loan granted to European AE has to be based on Euribor, (ii) If technical know-how is transferred by reserving certain rights, there is no "transfer" for s. 2(47) capital gains, (iii) interest u/s 244A is not taxable if withdrawn
Though, technical know-how is a capital asset, it does not necessarily follow that all receipts from exploitation of such asset are to be treated as capital receipts. Revenue receipts can also be generated by exploiting capital assets
ACIT vs. Gillette India Ltd (ITAT Jaipur)
S. 92D/ 271G: Penalty for non-filing of transfer pricing documents cannot be levied in a general manner
It is trite law that in penalty proceedings, the assessee needs to be made aware of the exact nature of charge which is leveled against him. This is so because the assessee is suppose to give a reply on the specific allegation and not on the assumptive allegation
B. R. Films vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Important law on recognition of revenue in the context of taxability of advance received for transfer of home video & satellite broadcasting for a period of five years explained
In CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of accrual and the effect of subsequent events thereon. In this case Supreme Court made a distinction between “Real Income” and “hypothetical income” and stated that it is the real accrual of income that has to be taken into consideration and not a hypothetical accrual of income
Donaldson India Filters Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(Delhi High Court)
S. 147: Assessment cannot be reopened in the absence of "fresh material"
The order passed by the assessing authority extracted above unmistakably shows that even at that stage it had no fresh material available to it so as to exercise the jurisdiction available under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act. It was, thus, taking a fresh call on the subject of assessment of income (i.e. re-assessment), drawing conclusions and inferences from the same very material that had been scrutinized in the original assessment proceedings
S. 11 (charity) and 12AA (cancellation of registration): Important propositions of law laid down
s.12AA(3) has no retrospective effect as it is neither explanatory nor clarificatory in nature and the CIT has no power to rescind the order passed by the CIT prior to 1st Oct.2004. For an assessee to be classified as charitable under the residuary category i.e. “advancement of any other object of general public utility” u/s 2(15) of the Act, the following four factors have to be satisfied
Mylan Laboratories Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
(i) ALP of interest on loan granted to European AE has to be based on Euribor, (ii) If technical know-how is transferred by reserving certain rights, there is no "transfer" for s. 2(47) capital gains, (iii) interest u/s 244A is not taxable if withdrawn
Though, technical know-how is a capital asset, it does not necessarily follow that all receipts from exploitation of such asset are to be treated as capital receipts. Revenue receipts can also be generated by exploiting capital assets
ACIT vs. Gillette India Ltd (ITAT Jaipur)
S. 92D/ 271G: Penalty for non-filing of transfer pricing documents cannot be levied in a general manner
It is trite law that in penalty proceedings, the assessee needs to be made aware of the exact nature of charge which is leveled against him. This is so because the assessee is suppose to give a reply on the specific allegation and not on the assumptive allegation
B. R. Films vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Important law on recognition of revenue in the context of taxability of advance received for transfer of home video & satellite broadcasting for a period of five years explained
In CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of accrual and the effect of subsequent events thereon. In this case Supreme Court made a distinction between “Real Income” and “hypothetical income” and stated that it is the real accrual of income that has to be taken into consideration and not a hypothetical accrual of income
Donaldson India Filters Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(Delhi High Court)
S. 147: Assessment cannot be reopened in the absence of "fresh material"
The order passed by the assessing authority extracted above unmistakably shows that even at that stage it had no fresh material available to it so as to exercise the jurisdiction available under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act. It was, thus, taking a fresh call on the subject of assessment of income (i.e. re-assessment), drawing conclusions and inferences from the same very material that had been scrutinized in the original assessment proceedings
No comments:
Post a Comment