Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Imp Verdicts On ITAT Members, 50C, 14A/ Rule 8D, S. 292C Presumption, TDS On Non-Cash Deals Etc


ITO vs. LGW Limited (ITAT Kolkata)

S. 50C should not be invoked if difference between stamp value and declared consideration is nominal, S. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply to share application money, Pure foreign exchange hedging transactions cannot be treated as speculative transactions
Though section 50C of the Act does not speak of any such variation in terms of percentage between value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty and the registration and the actual consideration received on transfer, keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench and keeping in view of the fact that the difference between the valuation for the stamp duty and the actual consideration received by the assessee is less than 2% we are of the view that addition sustained by CIT(A) should be deleted
 

Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 292C: The presumption that documents found during search correctly reflect the facts is a ‘discretionary presumption’ & not a ‘compulsory presumption’. The presumption does not apply if the documents are inchoate
Section 292 of the Act provides that where any documents are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act, then it may be presumed in any proceedings under this Act that the contents of such documents are true and correct. It will be noted that the section uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption. Therefore this presumption has to be invoked by the authorities passing an order under the Act particularly when the invocation of such presumption is discretionary on the authorities
 

The Income Tax Bar Association vs. UOI (Allahabad High Court)

Allotment of residential accommodation to ITAT Members should be dealt with by the Govt fairly and on a high-priority basis to enable them to discharge judicial work efficiently
The learned Additional Solicitor General has stated that the matter of allotment of residential accommodation to members of the ITAT shall be dealt with fairly and on a priority basis. We are of the view that the same principle should be followed for the future so as to obviate writ petitions being required to be filed by members of the Tribunal or on their behalf before this Court. Unless proper accommodation is made available to the members of the ITAT, the work on the judicial side cannot be expected to be discharged with a degree of efficiency. This is a matter which should be dealt with on a high priority in all respects. We record the assurance of the ASG as noted above
 

Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 37(1): Though eyes are an important tool for the performance of functions by a professional (solicitor), the expenditure on its treatment is personal expenditure and not business expenditure
No evidence has been brought on record to establish that in the absence of investigation and treatment, the applicant would be handicapped in discharging his obligation as a Solicitor/ Advocate. While at this, we cannot resist but point out that in this Court itself, we have a couple of visually challenged Advocates who are very competent in discharging their duties. Taken to its logical conclusion, then every and all expense incurred on daily living and food would be allowable as expenditure under Section 37 of the Act
 

CIT vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (Karnataka High Court)

S. 194LA: TDS provisions apply only when payment is made by cash, cheques etc and not to a case of exchange such as of land for Certificate of Development Rights (CDR/ TDR)
The concept of tax deduction at source (TDS) and depositing the same with the Revenue is where payment is made by cash, cheque, demand draft or any other similar mode. When such payment in terms of money is made, the deduction is to be made by the person responsible to pay, and is to deposit the same with the Income Tax Department, which would be adjusted and credited to the account of the person on whose behalf such amount is paid to the Income Tax Department, and in such a case, such person, who would then be an assessee before the Department, would be entitled to adjustment of the amount so deducted as TDS on behalf of the said assessee. When no payment is made by BBMP to the land owner in terms of money, such deduction is neither possible nor is conceived under Section 194LA

No comments: