Monday, 10 August 2015

Five Imp Verdicts On Core Issues


CIT vs. Ovira Logistics (P) Ltd (Bombay High Court)

S. 43B: Service-tax billed to customer but not collected from him cannot be disallowed u/s 43B on ground of non-payment to treasury
Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay the service tax before actual receipt of the funds in the account of the assesee. Liability to pay service tax into the treasury will arise only upon the assessee receiving the funds and not otherwise
 

Price Waterhouse vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)

S. 92B(1): If assessee contends that it has not entered into an "international transaction" with an AE, the TPO has to counter that by furnishing relevant information. Failure to do so can be challenged by a Writ Petition
When the petitioner no.1 replied to the said notice by its letter dated 29th April, 2015, the concerned respondent authority ought to have given a reply by supplying such relevant materials with which it come to a conclusion that the petitioner no.1 was an “associated enterprise” of PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV. The reason why furnishing of such relevant materials were singularly important is that if the petitioner no.1 was not an “associated enterprise” of PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV, there cannot be any computation of income from “international transaction” having regard to arm’s length price as envisaged under section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
 

Malineni Babulu (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

S. 40(a)(ia)/ 194A/ 197A(1A): If payer obtains declarations in Form 15G/ 15H, tax is not deductible at source. Failure to furnish such declarations to CIT may attract penalty u/s 272A(2)(f). However, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made
The assessee has received such Forms as prescribed from those persons to whom interest was paid/being paid and accordingly no deduction of tax was to be made in such cases. The default for non-furnishing of the declarations to the Commissioner of Income-tax as prescribed may result in invoking penalty provisions under section 272A(2)(f), for which separate provision/procedure was prescribed under the Act. However, once Form 15G/ Form 15H was received by the person responsible for deducting tax, there is no liability to deduct tax. Once there is no liability to deduct tax, it cannot be considered that tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B as prescribed under section 40(a)(ia)
 

Rollatainers Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 147: The revenue audit cannot perform functions of judicial supervision and a reopening based on the interpretation of the audit cannot be sustained. However, a reopening based on communication of the law or factual inaccuracy by the audit is valid
The logic in not sustaining the initiation of reassessment on the basis of interpretation of law by the audit party is that the internal auditor cannot be allowed to perform functions of judicial supervision over the Income-tax authorities by suggesting to the Assessing Officer about how a provision should be interpreted and whether the interpretation so given by the AO to a particular provision of the Act is right or wrong
 

DCIT vs. Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

(i) DR can only support the AO's order and cannot set up an altogether new case before the ITAT, (ii) Loss on sale of shares, even if a speculation loss, can be set-off against the gains on sale of shares
Even if the loss claimed by the assessee relating to share transactions as well as loss resulting on valuation of closing stock is treated as speculation loss, the same is entitled to be set-off against the profit on sale of shares in view of DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. 261 CTR (Del) 127

No comments: