Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)S. 194-I: In deciding whether a payment is for "use of land", the substance of the transaction has to be seen. If the payment is for a variety of services and the use of land is minor, the payment cannot be treated as "rent"
When the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for ‘use of land’ would be adopting a totally naïve and simplistic approach which is far away from the reality. We have to keep in mind the substance behind such charges. When matter is looked into from this angle, keeping in view the full and larger picture in mind, it becomes very clear that the charges are not for use of land per se and, therefore, it cannot be treated as ‘rent’ within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act
CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd (Kerala High Court)S. 40(a)(ia)/ 194C/ 194J: Deduction u/s 194C instead of u/s 194J renders the shortfall liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)
The expression “tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B” occurring in Section 40(a)(ia) has to be understood as tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, as in this case, if tax is deductible under Section 194J but is deducted under Section 194C, such a deduction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 40(a)(ia). The latter part of this Section that such tax has not been deducted, again refers to the tax deducted under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Thus, a cumulative reading of this provision, therefore, shows that deduction under a wrong provision of law will not save an assessee from Section 40(a)(ia)
ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto
The reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same