Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. ITO
(Bombay High Court)
S. 260A: Entire law on condonation of delay explained
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to bring about a situation of unsettling judicial decisions which stood accepted by the parties. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties
Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High
Court)
S. 115JB: Distinction between "reserve" & "provision" explained. Statutory reserve created u/s 45-IC of RBI Act is not a "diversion of income at source" and cannot be excluded from book profits
Diversion of income at source by way of overriding title as a principle is applicable when under a statutory or contractual obligation or under the provisions of Memorandum and Articles of Association, the earning is divested and the assessed has no title over a particular receipt. When such charge exists, the amount or income so charged must be excluded from income of the assessed as income never reaches his hands and in fact belongs to a third person. Thus, the income stands diverted at source. Diversion of income at source implies that income or the amount mentioned therein belongs to a third party and was not income of the assesse
IVF Advisors Private Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 43(5): Transaction of call/put options in foreign currency are "derivatives" and loss suffered therein is not a "speculation" loss
“Derivatives” include foreign currency call option/ put option. These transactions are of derivative markets and cannot be termed as speculative in nature
ACIT vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Law on applicability of s. 271AAA penalty in the context of a voluntary disclosure u/s 132(4) explained. Difference between s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAA also explained
For s. 271AAA, a finding as to the impugned incomes being undisclosed incomes is a pre-requisite for the application of the provision. Further, each of the three ingredients as specified u/s. 271AAA(2) would need to be separately examined for their satisfaction by the assessee if the penalty there-under is not to be levied and, thus, sustained. The admission u/s.132(4) is to specify the undisclosed income, or at least the manner in which it is to be arrived at; the whole premise for extending immunity from the penalty, statutorily mandated, being that the assessee commits himself, providing the necessary details under a condition of oath.
Jignesh P. Shah vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 153A: Assessments which have attained finality cannot be disturbed or varied if no incriminating material is found qua the addition made
Since the assessment had attained finality before the date of search and does not get abated in view of second proviso to section 153A, therefore, without there being any incriminating material found at the time of search, no addition over and above the income which already stood assessed can be made
Swiss Re-insurance Company Limited vs. DDIT (ITAT
Mumbai)
Service PE: Establishing subsidiary in other treaty country does not result in creating PE of a foreign holding company in the third country. As the employees of SRSIPL are not providing services to the assessee as if they were the employees of the assessee, there is no "service PE"
The AO is not right in (i) treating the assessee as having a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment; (ii) laying down that the assessee has a business connection in India; (iii) treating SRSIPL as service PE and (iv) treating SRSIPL as Agency PE
No comments:
Post a Comment