Recent Income tax judgements.

 Supreme court in the case of Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd held that Dividend Income from Indian Entity’s Establishment In Oman Having ‘Permanent Establishment’ Status Under DTAA Not Taxable In India

 

·       Supreme court judgment in the case of US Technologies held that that the scope and extent of Section 271C’s application are discernible from the provision itself, in unambiguous terms. The section, as written, does not permit the imposition of penalties solely because the TDS amount was not remitted within the prescribed time frame, except as provided for in limited sections under Section 271C(1)(b). 

 

·       Gujarat High court in the case of SWATIBEN BIHARILAL PAREKH held that settlement of dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act  and finalizing thereof is nothing but the closure of disputes in respect of tax arrears which cannot be subsequently reopened by issuing notice u/s 263 of the Act for revising the assessment order

·       Mumbai ITAT upholds penalty under black money law for non-disclosure of foreign assets in tax return

 

·       Mumbai ITAT in the case of Aruna Chandak held that Provisions of Sec 56(2)(vii)(C) are not applicable in the case of bonus shares.

 

·       Mumbai ITAT in the case of TCS held that there is no need to charge brand royalty from AEs.

 

·       Mumbai ITAT in the case of Total energies marketing held that ESOP is taxable in the hands of employees not at the time of grant of ESOP but at the time of vesting ESOP rights.

 

·       In the case of Subash Tandon v/s ITO, Delhi [ITA No. 1382/Del/2023], Delhi Tribunal held that amount received on redemption of Unit Linked Insurance Plan [ULIP] is taxed under the head “Income from Capital Gains” instead of taxing gross receipts under the head “Income from Other Sources” on the reasoning that ULIP is linked to the units of mutual fund allotted to the assessee in respect of money paid by him. Further, reference is also made to section 45(1B) of the Income-tax Act which also states that receipts from ULIP is taxed under “Income from Capital Gains”.     

 

·       ITAT Delhi in the case of LIFESTYLE PROBUILD PVT. LTD held that prescribed method for unquoted shares is not any specific method but it provides that assessee may obtain valuation report from merchant banker or accountant. In this case the assessee has obtained valuation report of the accountant. To this extent, valuation adopted by the assessee cannot be said to be not in accordance with law.

 

·       Jaipur ITAT in the case of Mangalam Art held that Interest paid on TDS is compensatory in nature and is a business expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax.