Compiled by CA. Pramod Jain [email protected] +

ITRV CASE LAW DIGEST FOR YEAR 2011 SUBJECT INDEX S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Subject Section 14A MAT – 115 JB / 115J...

258KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views

Recommend Documents

Compiled by John Pryke
Model steam locomotives—current popularity and selection. Model steam locomotives—new types of construction. Detaili

By Samir Jain - Veeder-Root
water enters into a tank of ethanol-blended fuel, some of the water will ... ethanol-water mixture separates from the fu

Information Compiled By - Paul Ainslie
4211 Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto. (416) 635-2860. Community Navigation and Access Program c/o WoodGreen Community S

Compiled by Rick Dreves - RickDreves.com
videos -- including a 4-minute video 'tour' of the ancestral .... have contact with the Sulzbach branch of my family, wh

Presentation by Mohit Jain - Dignitas Digital
Timway - Hong Kong. ▻ Onkosh - Arabic search - Middle East. ▻ Aýna - Arabic search - Middle East and North Africa.

PICKENS COUNTY,GEORGIA,RESOURCES Compiled by Linda
Pickens County was created 5 December 1853, from Cherokee and Gilmer Counties; #100 in order of ..... Pickens County, Ge

Compiled Weekly by TEC Direct Media, Inc
Jun 1, 2015 - Justin Moore- (Val) Album off chart with 342K Sold in 78 Wks. No ..... Whitey Morgan- (Indi) Album moves #

THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPILED BY ROBERT - 78opera
Faust (Gounod): Scena della croce. 1-35284. 67. Hamlet (Thomas): Come il romito fior. 1-35291 (1909-06-05). 68. Manon (M

Compiled by: ThS. ÑOÃ THÒ HOA QUYEÂN
f-waterfall g-imperial mausoleum h-citadel i-gongs festival j-national park .... d- □ Hawaiians no longer speak their ow

THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPILED BY ROBERT - 78opera
The Castle of Andalusia (Shield): The wolf. 4-2035. -. 9145e d:o unpubl. -. 9146e. My little woman (Osgood) unpubl. 61.

ITRV CASE LAW DIGEST FOR YEAR 2011 SUBJECT INDEX S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Subject Section 14A MAT – 115 JB / 115JA Penalty Capital Gain Share Transactions / Derivatives Assessment / Re-assessment / Revision / Appeals / Demand Search and Seizure International Taxation / Transfer Pricing / 10A / 10B Income from House Property Deductions under Chapter VIA Depreciation Section 68 Capital vs. Revenue Charity / Exempt incomes u/s 10 Carry forward and set-off of losses Tax Deduction at Source Partnership Deemed Dividend Section 36 / 37 / Other Disallowances GP Ratio / Books of Accounts / Valuation Officer Miscellaneous

Page No (s). 2-3 3 4-5 6 7-8 8-12 13 14-19 19 19-20 21 21 22-23 23 23 24-25 25 25 26 26-27 27-28

For full text of the case laws please log on to www.itrvault.in .

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

Page

(Disclaimer: Though full efforts have been made to summarise the case laws correctly, yet ITR VAULT or the compiler is not responsible / liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake / error / omissions)

1

Compiled by CA. Pramod Jain [email protected] +919811073867

SECTION 14A

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-002 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-004 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM006 2011-ITRVHC-KER-023 2011-ITRVHC-KAR-053 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-056 2011-ITRVHC-GUJ-066 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM071 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM082 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM096 2011-ITRV-SC181 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-184]

Dy. CIT vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Pawan Kumar Parmeshwarlal vs. ACIT CIT vs. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Mahesh Shetty & Onrs vs. CIT Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd Yatish Trading Co. P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Hoshang D Nanavati vs. ACIT Godrej Industries ltd. vs. DCIT Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs DCIT CIT v. K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd

Court

Held

ITAT (Delhi)

S. 14A law laid down in Minda Investments cannot be followed as later decisions have remanded matter to AO For s. 14A disallowance, even under Rule 8D, onus is on AO to show nexus between expenditure and tax-free income No s. 14A disallowance of interest on borrowed funds if AO does not show nexus between borrowed funds & tax-free investment No s. 14A disallowance for personal tax-free investments if business expenditure not disallowed on ground of being for personal purposes. There would be no s. 14A Disallowance of administrative expenses pre Rule 8D

ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Mumbai)

Kerala High Court Karnataka High Court Delhi High Court

Despite Proviso to s.14A, s. 14A disallowance can be made for earlier years Section 147 Reopening for AY 2000-01 is valid despite Proviso to s. 14A. Material facts must be disclosed during assessment proceeding Gujarat High S. 14A disallowance of interest on borrowings Court on ground that assessee ought not to have used own funds for tax-free investments is invalid ITAT No s. 14A disallowance of interest on borrowed (Mumbai) funds used to buy shares for trading purposes. ITAT (Mumbai)

Section 14A disallowance cannot be made for “depreciation” and mediclaim premium

ITAT (Mumbai)

S. 14A disallowance of interest on borrowings on ground that assessee ought to have repaid borrowings instead of investing in tax-free investments is invalid Despite bar in Proviso to s. 14A, s. 147 reopening for earlier years is valid

Supreme Court Mumbai High Court

No s. 14A disallowance of interest on borrowed funds if AO does not show nexus between borrowed funds & tax-free investment

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

2

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-001

Appellant vs. Respondent Continental Carriers P. Ltd. vs. ACIT DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd

Page

Citation

2011-ITRVHC-GUJ-191

CIT vs. Lubi Submersibles Ltd

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-229

CIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd

2011-ITRVITAT-CHD-230

ACIT vs. Punjab State Coop. & Marketing Fed Ltd Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-253

Gujarat High Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds u/s Court 14A could not be made because the assessee were having mixed pool of funds and also investment were made in the preceding years as no fresh investment was made during the year under consideration ITAT Assessing Officer cannot apply Rule 8D read (Delhi) with section 14A without showing how assessee’s method is incorrect ITAT No S. 14A disallowance in absence of nexus (Chandigarh) between investment in tax-free securities & borrowed funds and S. 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income Delhi High No S. 14A or Rule 8D disallowance can be made Court without showing how assessee’s calculation is wrong and only real expenditure can be disallowed

MAT – SECTION 115JB / 115JA

2011-ITRV-SC005 2011-ITRV-SC009

Jt. CIT vs. Rolta India Ltd CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd

2011-ITRV-HCKER-060

CIT vs. Packworth Udyog Ltd. Pieco Electronics & Electricals Ltd. vs. CIT CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech. Sys. Pvt. Ltd

2011-ITRV-HCKOL-186

2011-ITRV-SC243

Court

Held

Supreme Amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve & Court credited to P&L A/c cannot be reduced from book profit even if in year of creation of reserve, the P&L A/c was not debited Supreme Even s. 115J / 115JA Book Profit Cos liable for Court advance-tax & s. 234B interest Supreme S. 115JAA MAT credit to be set off before Court computing advance-tax shortfall and liability for s. 234B/C interest Kerala For s. 115JA/JB, s. 80HHC deduction to be High computed as per normal provisions & not on P&L court profits Kolkatta For the purpose of computing book profits u/s 115J, High the loss to be considered should be before Court appropriation of any reserve Supreme For s. 115JA/JB, deduction u/s 80HHC is to be Court computed as per P&L Profits & not normal provisions

3

2011-ITRV-SC003

Appellant vs. Respondent Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs CIT

Page

Citation

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

PENALTY

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

Page

Appellant vs. Court Held Respondent 2011-ITRVNayan Builders ITAT Mere admission of Appeal by High Court is ITAT-MUM-087 & Developers (Mumbai) sufficient to disbar s. 271(1)(c) penalty. P. Ltd. vs. ITO 2011-ITRVRenu Hingorani ITAT Failure to voluntarily apply s. 50C does not ITAT-MUM-094 vs. ACIT (Mumbai) attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 2011-ITRVRuchi Strips & ITAT Despite concealment, no s. 271(1)(c) penalty if ITAT-MUM-095 Alloys Ltd. vs. (Mumbai) assessment is under deeming provision of s. DCIT 115JB book profits 2011-ITRV-HC- CIT vs. SAS Delhi High Despite detection in survey, no s. 271(1)(c) DEL-112 Pharmaceuticals Court penalty if income is offered in Return of Income 2011-ITRVDCIT v. Nalwa ITAT (Delhi) No s. 271(1)(c) penalty for failure to disallow ITAT-DEL-114 Investments Ltd u/s 14A. 2011-ITRVACIT vs. ITAT (Delhi) No penalty u/s 271(1)(d), if a bonafide mistake ITAT-DEL-117 Multiple Zones which had been voluntarily corrected by India P. Ltd assessee during assessment proceedings. 2011-ITRVHero Honda ITAT (Delhi) No penalty could be levied where question of ITAT-DEL-118 Motors Ltd. vs. law is being admitted in the High Court and also DCIT where the issue is debatable in nature which leads to constitution of Special Bench 2011-ITRVKEI Rsos ITAT Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) could not be levied where ITAT-HYD-121 Maritime Ltd. (Hyderabad) addition has been deleted in quantum appeal vs. Dy CIT 2011-ITRVSurat Fashions ITAT Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) could not be levied where ITAT-AHD-124 Ltd. vs. ACIT (Ahemdabad) addition has been made on estimate basis 2011-ITRV-HC- EIH Ltd. vs. Kolkatta Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied merely CAL-156 CIT High Court because the additions made by the assessing officer was sustained by the appellate authorities 2011-ITRVITO vs. ITAT (Pune) Reprimanded AO for harassing the assessee by ITAT-PUNEAudyogic wrongly levying penalty 173 Tantra Shikshan Sanstha 2011-ITRV-HC- ACIT vs. Gujarat High Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied on the GUJ-193 Transpek Silox Court simultaneous claim of the deduction u/s 80IB & Industry Ltd. 80HHC since the same were highly debatable 2011-ITRVDCIT vs. RBS ITAT No penalty can be levied under Expl 7 to s. ITAT-MUM-195 Equities India (Mumbai) 271(1)(c) for dispute regarding ALP method Ltd used in Transfer Pricing 2011-ITRVACIT vs. ITAT (Delhi) Despite disclosure, legal opinion, favourable

4

Citation

ITAT-DEL-211

Khanna & Annadhanam

2011-ITRVACIT vs. ITAT-MUM-213 Metropolis Health Services (India) Pvt. Ltd

ITAT (Mumbai)

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-221

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-227

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-231 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-232

2011-ITRV-HCMUM-236

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-272 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-279

2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE281

CIT vs. Splender Construction CIT vs. Mohair Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd CIT vs. MTNL Ltd Dy. CIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd The Metal Rolling Works Ltd. vs. CIT

CIT vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd Jet Life India Ltd. vs. CIT

Dy. CIT vs. Inderchand Surajmal Bothra

Delhi High There can be no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without Court AO’s Finding on “Inaccurate Particulars” ITAT (Delhi) No s. 271G Penalty (TP) for failure to respond to “omnibus” notice.

Mumbai High Court

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court

ITAT (Pune)

ITAT (Mumbai)

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) where there was difference of opinion between assessee and AO as to the year of chargeability of capital gains and where the AO by issuing various SCN itself changes the stand to be adopted Despite conceding “bad debts”, assessee can raise new plea of “trading loss” for advances written off; penalty not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty u/s 271E could not be levied since prior to amendment in section 269T by 01.06.2002, only repayments of deposits was covered therein, and not the repayments of loans Benefit of immunity provided under Explanation-5 to s. 271(1)(c) could not be denied to assessee merely because the assessee, in its statement recorded during the course of search, did not specify the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied where the addition was made on an estimate basis Page

5

2011-ITRVNarayansingh J. ITAT-MUM-283 Deora vs. ACIT

Delhi High Court

CIT(A) order & High Court admitting appeal on merits, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is leviable if issue is not “debatable” in Tribunal’s view Where income surrendered during course of search/survey was duly disclosed in return of income filed pursuant thereto, then no penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case no variation is made to returned income by the AO Despite disclosure of conversion of stock into investment and acceptance by AO, claim that gains is LTCG attracts s. 271(1)(c) penalty S. 275(1)(a) Penalty limitation period is not curbed by its Proviso.

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

CAPITAL GAINS Citation 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM054 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM070 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM076 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM093 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM098 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM100 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM107 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM111 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM129 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM225

Court

Held

ITAT S. 54EC relief is available if cheque is issued (Mumbai) within 6 months of transfer, even if cheque cleared, and bonds issued, after 6 months ITAT S. 54 Relief is available to multiple sales and (Mumbai) purchases of residential houses

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT Raj Ratan Palace Co-op Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. DCIT ITO vs. United Marine Academy ITO vs. Sh. Hemandas J. Pariyani Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO

ITAT Despite s. 50B, transfer of undertaking for non(Mumbai) money consideration not taxable if “cost of acquisition” not determinable ITAT Granting permission for development is not (Mumbai) “transfer” & consideration is not assessable in society’s hands

Chiranjeev Lal Khanna vs. ITO

ITAT Granting development rights for demolition & (Mumbai) reconstruction of building results in “transfer of land & building” ITAT S. 54EC deduction is allowable before set-off of (Mumbai) brought-forward loss.

Tata Power Co. Ltd. vs. Addl CIT Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT CIT vs. Manuja J. Shah

ITAT S. 50C is applicable to depreciable assets (Mumbai) ITAT As Transferable Development Rights (TDR) has no (Mumbai) cost of acquisition, amount received not taxable as Capital Gains ITAT Section 50C does not apply to transfer of (Mumbai) “leasehold rights” as it is not “land or building”.

ITAT Loss on pro-rata reduction of share capital is (Mumbai) “Notional”. In absence of consideration, capital gains provisions do not apply Mumbai High Court

Indexed cost of gifted assets has to be determined with reference to previous owner for the purposes of computing capital gains Page

6

2011-ITRV-HCMUM-263

Appellant vs. Respondent Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi vs. DCIT(A) Rajesh Keshav Pillai vs. ITO

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

SHARE TRANSACTIONS / DERIVATIVES

2011-ITAT-HCMUM-088

CIT vs. Bharat K. Ruia (HUF)

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM099 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM108 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM113 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM127

Shantilal M Jain vs. ACIT

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-008 2011-ITRV-HCKOL-033 2011-ITRVITAT-KOL-034

ITO vs. Radha Birju Patel Mahendra C Shah vs. Addl. CIT Gajendra Kumar T Agarwal vs. ITO

Court

Held

Delhi High Court Kolkatta High Court ITAT (Kolkatta)

Though main object is to do business in shares, shares can be held as a capital asset & not stock-intrade Under Expl to s. 73 even delivery-based loss on shares is “speculation” loss. Share sale price cannot be apportioned towards transfer of “controlling interest”

ITAT Despite high volume & short holding period, (Mumbai) shares gain is Short Term Capital Gain ITAT Large volume in shares is not a deciding factor to (Mumbai) hold assessee trader in shares. ITAT Despite Large number of transactions in shares, (Mumbai) profit assessable as capital gains. Gujarat High Court Mumbai High Court ITAT (Mumbai)

Merely because shares are purchased by taking loan at high interest does not mean gains are taxable as business profits Prior to 1.4.2006, derivatives Loss is “Speculation” Loss u/s 43(5) as amendment in S. 43(5)(d) is not retrospective.[ Despite large volume etc of share transactions, AO is bound by Rule of Consistency to treat share gains as STCG. ITAT Gains arising from PMS transactions are capital (Mumbai) gains & not business profits. ITAT Despite borrowing, shares gain can be STCG & not (Mumbai) business profits ITAT Post s. 43(5) amendment, pre-AY 2006-07 (Mumbai) derivatives “speculation” losses have to be treated as “non-speculation” business losses for purposes of set-off

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

7

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM059 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM062 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM065 2011-ITRV-HCGUJ-074

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. vs. CIT ACIT vs. R.K.B.K. Financial Services Ltd. ACIT vs. Naishadh V. Vachharajani Sh. Ramesh Babu Rao vs. ACIT Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) vs. ACIT CIT vs. Niraj Amidhar Surti

Page

Citation

2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE128 2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE135 2011-ITRV-SC140

ARA Trading & Investments P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT KRA Holding & Trading P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. Gopal Purohit

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM168

Hitesh Satishchandra Doshi Etemia vs. Jt. CIT Sanjay Gala vs. ITAT Bonus shares are eligible for s. 115F relief if ITO (Mumbai) original shares are acquired in foreign currency

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM176 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM222 2011-ITRV-HCMUM-228 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-238

Shri Homi K. Bhabha vs. ITO CIT vs. Naishadh V. Vachharajani ACIT vs. Shri Jugmandar Dass Bansal

ITAT (Pune)

Shares PMS transaction gains are STCG and not business profits

ITAT (Pune)

Shares PMS fee, even if NAV based, is deductible in computing PMS capital gains

Supreme Court

Dismissed the department's SLP against the Bombay High Court judgment which laid down the tests to determine whether shares gains assessable as STCG or business profits ITAT Even gains on shares held for 30 days & less is (Mumbai) STCG & not business profits

ITAT PMS Fees is not deductible against capital gains. (Mumbai) Despite dissenting orders, reference to Special Bench is not necessary Mumbai Despite high volume & short holding period, High shares gain is STCG Court ITAT Profit on sale of shares in the case of assessee who (Delhi) is a broker at stock exchange is taxable as “STCG”

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM007 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-012 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-021 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-024

Appellant vs. Respondent DHL Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT Shri Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT VIP Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Sh. Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO

Court

Held

ITAT (Mumbai)

Stay Application in Tribunal is maintainable despite non-filing of stay petition before lower authorities Despite lack of direct evidence, tax evasion can be assessed High Court has power to review its judgement u/s 260A Despite service of s. 148 notice in time, nonsupply of ‘Reasons For Reopening’ within time renders the reopening void

ITAT (Delhi) Mumbai High Court ITAT (Delhi)

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

Page

Citation

8

ASSESSMENT / RE-ASSESSMENT / REVISION / APPEALS / DEMAND

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-P&H-038

CIT vs. Rockman Cycle Inds. P. Ltd Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT The Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd CIT vs. India Sea Foods CIT vs. Varindera Construction Co

Punjab & Haryana High Court ITAT (Delhi)

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-044 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-046

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-047 2011-ITRVHC-KER-051 2011-ITRVHC-P&H-052

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-057

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-092

UKT Software Technologies P. Ltd. vs. ITO Shri Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO I. K. Agencies P. Ltd. vs. CWT Honeywell Automation India Ltd. vs. DCIT Tata Communications Ltd. vs. ACIT Synergy Enterpreneur Solutions P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Areva T&D vs. ADIT

2011-ITRV-

Sh. Biswanath

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-058 2011-ITRVHC-KOL-063 2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE083 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM085 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM086

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Kerala High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court (FB) ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Delhi)

Due to consistency principle, CIT not permitted to change view & revise u/s 263 without changed circumstances AO can lift veil & determine legal effect but cannot ignore legal effect on ground of “substance” S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee’s claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void CIT’s Sanction u/s 148/151 if mechanical and without reasons is invalid. Assessee cannot be expected to disclose what he does not know CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals Assessing officer is entitled to issue s. 154 notice, drop it, & issue s. 148 notice CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals does not apply to pending appeals

Non-issue of s. 143(2) notice renders s. 147 assessment order invalid. Mistake in s. 254(2) order cannot be rectified

Kolkatta High Court ITAT (Pune)

Reopening Notice issued to Amalgamating Company is Void and is not saved by s. 292B Direct Stay Application to Tribunal is maintainable, it is not necessary that lower authorities must be approached first

ITAT (Mumbai) ITAT (Mumbai)

Despite Third Proviso to s. 254(2A), Tribunal has power to extend stay beyond 365 days if delay not attributable to assessee Section 263 Revision order, if for reason not stated in show-cause notice, is invalid

Delhi High Court

Despite view taken in s. 195(2)/197 order, s. 147 reopening is valid.

ITAT

No revision under section 263 is permissible

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

9

CIT vs. Escorts Ltd

Page

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-037

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

10 Page

ITAT-CAL-120 Pasari vs. ACIT (Kolkatta) simply because AO order is brief 2011-ITRVNagajuna ITAT No revision under section 263 is permissible ITAT-HYD-123 Fertilizers & (Hyderabad) where two views are available and A.O. took one Chemicals Ltd. possible view vs. Addl CIT 2011-ITRVRanbaxy Delhi High If AO does not assess income for which reasons HC-DEL-130 Laboratories Ltd. Court were recorded u/s 147, he cannot assess other vs. CIT income u/s 147 2011-ITRVITO vs. Laxmi ITAT CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing ITAT-MUMJewel P. Ltd (Mumbai) appeals applies to pending appeals. 132 2011-ITRVShramjivi Nagari ITAT Directed the AO to pay costs for “recovery ITAT-PUNESahakari Pat (Pune) harassment” 133 Sanstha vs. Addl CIT 2011-ITRVCIT vs. Safetag Delhi High If assessee does not ask for s. 147 reasons & HC-DEL-134 International Court object to reopening, ITAT cannot remand to AO India Ltd & give assessee another opportunity 2011-ITRVGeofin Delhi High Tribunal entitled to do “own research” & rely on HC-DEL-136] Investments P. Court non-cited cases Ltd. vs. CIT 2011-ITRV-SC- CIT vs. Indian Supreme Dismissing the department's SLP has held that 141 Hotels Co. Ltd Court long delay due to procedural reasons in filing Dept appeals cannot be condoned 2011-ITRVTitanor Mumbai Despite “Wrong Claim”, s. 147 reopening invalid HC-MUM-145 Components Ltd. High Court vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011-ITRVCIT vs. Goyal Delhi High S. 263 order becomes “infructuous” if effect HC-DEL-147 M.G. Gases Pvt. Court order is not passed in “reasonable time” Ltd 2011-ITRVCIT vs. Mukesh Mumbai No revision under section 263 of the I.T.Act HC-MUM-158 J Upadhyay High Court could be carried by the CIT if the impugned issue has already been considered by the A.O. as well as by CIT(A) 2011-ITRV-SC- CEC vs. Doaba Supreme CBDT and CBEC to formulate uniform policy 171 Steel Rolling Court with strict parameters on appeal filing Mills 2011-ITRVKanubhai M Gujarat To decide whether s. 148 notice is “issued” in HC-GUJ-175 Patel HUF vs. High Court time, date of handing over by AO to post office Hiren Bhatt is to be seen 2011-ITRVDCIT vs. ITAT Even issues “sub-judice” before High Court can ITAT-MUMSummit (Mumbai) be heard by Tribunal 183 Securities Ltd.

Kolkatta High Court

2011-ITRVHC-KOL-188

Surajmall Lalchand & Sons vs. ACIT

Kolkatta High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM202 2011-ITRV-SC203 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-220

CIT vs. Simoni Gems

ITAT (Mumbai)

CIT vs. Surya Herbal Ltd Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT

Supreme Court Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-MUM-237

Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

Mumbai High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-248 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-254

Gomti Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT CIT vs. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd

ITAT (Delhi) Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-MUM-258

CIT vs. K. Mohan & Co

Mumbai High Court

2011-ITRVHC-MUM-259

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

Mumbai High Court

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-255

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-264

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

In case there was some controversy related to the subject issue which was settled by the later decision of Supreme Court and such SC decision was available when CIT invokes jurisdiction u/s 263, then revision u/s 263 is permissible An appellate authority has every right to remand a matter on a specific point if the mistake of the lower authorities is limited to that very point and in such a situation, there is no necessity of passing an order of fresh assessment on all points CIT-DR’s “false & frivolous” submissions constitute “criminal contempt” and justify recovery of costs from his salary CBDT’s low tax effect circular is not applicable to matters having “cascading effect” Despite specific & pointed queries in s. 143(3) assessment, AO cannot be said to have formed any opinion if explicit opinion not recorded u/s 147 Initiation of reassessment proceedings by AO u/s 147 within 4 years on the ground that there was sufficient tangible material before the AO in form of reconciliation statement filed by assessee and various other documents impounded during the course of survey is valid If reasons are not supplied within the time limits u/s 149, then re-opening u/s 147 is invalid AO must specify what facts are failed to be disclosed. Lapse by AO is no ground for reopening u/s 147 if primary facts are disclosed If the CIT (A) acts on an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence, then the requirement of giving the AO an opportunity as per Rule 46A(3) is mandatory For the purposes of section 147, retrospective amendment does not mean failure to disclose material facts For purposes of section 147, “Full & true disclosure of material facts” means “specific” disclosure of “each” fact Refund arising in earlier year on issue cannot be adjusted against demand on same issue in subsequent year and adjustment of refund u/s 245 is recovery of tax

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

11

Jai Mica Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT

Page

2011-ITRVHC-KOL-187

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-265

C&C Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM271

Eversmile Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Star India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT

ITAT (Mumbai)

CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd Asst DIT(E) vs. India Itme Society

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-284

RRB consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-ALL-286

CIT vs. Shaila Agarwal

Allahabad High Court

2011-ITRVHC-CHG-287

ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta

Chattisgarh High Court

2011-ITRVHC-GUJ-289

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. ACIT CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd

Gujarat High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM273

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-278 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM280

ITAT (Mumbai)

Delhi High Court

Revision u/s 263 is right if the AO does not raise demands on issues which have been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court, even though the department is in appeal against the same, the interests of the revenue will be prejudiced and remain unprotected There can be no reopening u/s 147 after 4 years if there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts Refused to condone the delay of 1747 days in filing cross objections whereby the assessee challenged the jurisdiction u/s 148, on the ground that the assessee cannot take shelter of ignorance of law when he himself has engaged professional for arguing the department appeal 3 years back Once the assessee had disclosed the primary facts during the course of original assessment, then merely because in the original assessment, the AO draws the wrong legal inference on the stated facts as disclosed by the assessee, could not make valid reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 For the purpose of s. 153A the pendency of an appeal does not mean that the assessment proceedings are pending AO cannot assess other “escaped income” u/s 147 if AO does not assess the income in respect of which the s. 148 notice was issued If AO disputes Audit objection, she cannot use that as “reason to believe” for reassessment u/s 147 Sanction of CIT instead of JCIT renders reopening u/s 147 invalid Page

12

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-297

ITAT (Mumbai)

A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u/s 260A Assessee can agitate claim under assessment u/s 153A, which was given up at assessment u/s 143(3) stage

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

SEARCH AND SEIZURE Citation 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-010 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-035 2011-ITRVHC-P&H-077 2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE115

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-116 2011-ITRVBHRC-131

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Late Sh. Raj Pal Bhatia CIT vs. Mahindra Finlease P.Ltd CIT vs. Sai Metal Works Sinhgad Technical Education Society vs. ACIT CIT vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal In Re Rajendra Singh

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM213

ACIT vs. Metropolis Health Services (India) Pvt. Ltd

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM271

Eversmile Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. Shaila Agarwal

2011-ITRVHC-ALL-286

Ram S. Sarda vs. Dy. CIT

Held

Delhi High Court

S. 158BD proceedings without recording written satisfaction void. Statement recorded in search cannot form sole basis for s. 158BD addition Protective assessment can be framed u/s 158BC & 158BD

Delhi High Court Punjab and Haryana High Court ITAT (Pune)

Delhi High Court Bihar Human Rights Commission ITAT (Mumbai)

ITAT (Mumbai)

Allahabad High Court ITAT (Rajkot)

S. 40A(3) disallowance can be made in Block Assessment even if GP estimated S. 153C assessment sans “speaking” “incriminating” documents is void.

&

S. 158BD order is void if referring AO’s “satisfaction” is not recorded. If Search & Seizure action violates “human rights”, officers personally liable to pay compensation Where the income surrendered during the course of search/survey was duly disclosed in the return of income filed pursuant thereto, then no penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case no variation is made to the returned income by the assessing officer Assessee can agitate claim under assessment u/s 153A, which was given up at assessment u/s 143(3) stage For the purpose of s. 153A the pendency of an appeal does not mean that the assessment proceedings are pending Cash seized in search has to be adjusted against “Advance Tax”

Page

13

2011-ITRVITAT-RAJK292

Court

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION / TRANSFER PRICING / 10A / 10B Court

Held

ITAT (Mumbai)

TPO is entitled to substitute ‘CUP’ for ‘TNMM’ to determine arms’ length price. For generic drugs, CUP is appropriate method despite quality differences 2011-ITRVNimbus ITAT (Mumbai) If commercial transaction is at arms’ ITAT-MUMCommunications length, no transfer pricing addition can be 014 Ltd. vs. ACIT made for non-charging of interest on overdue debt 2011-ITRVDIT vs. L.G. Cable Delhi High Even in Turnkey Contract, off-shore HC-DEL-015 Ltd. Court supply profits is not taxable if transfer of title to purchaser takes place abroad 2011-ITRVAsst. CIT vs. UE ITAT (Delhi) Transfer Pricing benefit u/s 92C of +/ITAT-DEL-017 Trade Corporation 5% variation from ALP is not available if (I) P. Ltd. only one is price determined 2011-ITRVLogix Micro ITAT Even if commercial transaction is at ITAT-BANGSystems Ltd. vs. (Bangalore) arms’ length, debt overdue for long 018 ACIT period attracts transfer pricing interest 2011-ITRVAdobe Systems ITAT (Delhi) Super-normal profit cos must be excluded ITAT-DEL-022 India P. Ltd. vs. from comparables in TP. DRP must not Addl CIT pass cursory / laconic orders 2011-ITRVACIT vs. Essar ITAT +/- 5% Variation only if more than one ITAT-VIZAG- Steel Ltd (Visakhapatnam) price determined for purposes of Transfer 025 Pricing. CBDT Circular No. 12 dated 23.8.2001 is otiose 2011-ITRVAsia Satellite Delhi High No income is deemed to accrue in India HC-DEL-026 Telecommunications Court from use of satellite outside India to beam P. Ltd. v. DIT TV signals into India even if bulk of revenue arises due to viewers in India 2011-ITRVIntel Asia ITAT For TP - CUP method, arms length price ITAT-BANGElectronics Inc. (Bangalore) of slump sale should be determined with 032 India vs. Asst. DIT valuation report and failing that on Income tax WDV but not on Company law WDV. 2011-ITRVEricsson AB. vs. Delhi High S. 144C DRP must act to expectations & HC-DEL-039 Addl. DIT Court not have perfunctory approach 2011-ITRVClear Plus India P. ITAT (Delhi) CUP method is preferable to TNMM in ITAT-DEL-043 Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT transfer pricing 2011-ITRVTata Sons Ltd. vs. ITAT (Mumbai) Despite DTAA restricting credit to ITAT-MUMDy. CIT ‘Federal’ taxes, Foreign ‘State’ taxes also 049 eligible for credit u/s 91 Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

14

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM011

Appellant vs. Respondent Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT

Page

Citation

Gujarat High Court Kolkatta High Court

S. 144C order cannot be passed if no TP adjustments made by TPO. Interest paid by a branch of a Foreign Bank to its HO is deductible in the hands of the branch. Such interest is not taxable in the HO’s hands. Court of Appeal, Despite “Implicit support” by holding Canada company, subsidiary entitled to pay holding company at arms’ length for “explicit support” ITAT (Delhi) For TNMM (TP), interest on surplus & abnormal costs is to be excluded.

2011-ITRVCANADA-079

The Queen vs. General Electric Capital Canada Inc

2011-ITRVITAT – DEL 080 2011-ITRVITAT-BANG081

Marubeni India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT TNT India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT

ITAT (Bangalore)

2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE084 2011-ITRVHC-KAR-089

Cummins India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

ITAT (Pune)

Richter Holding Ltd. vs. Astt. DIT & Anrs

Karnataka High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM097 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-102 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-103 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-119

DHL Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd Sapient Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT M. L. Outsourcing Services P. Ltd. vs. ITO

ITAT (Mumbai)

2011-ITRVITAT-HYD122

ACIT vs. Viceroy Hotels Ltd.

ITAT (Delhi) (SB) ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Delhi)

ITAT (Hyderabad)

Prior Years’ data cannot ordinarily be relied upon to justify Arm's length Price (ALP). Non-operating income & expenditure should be excluded while comparing If Arms Length Price by determined by arithmetical mean, 5% deduction is allowable Corporate Veil can be lifted to tax sale of Foreign Co shares by one Non-Resident to another Non-Resident if Foreign Co holds shares in Indian Co. In TP, low turnover companies are not comparable. Only operational profits to be considered for comparison.[ Interest on Tax refund not “effectively connected” with PE. Loss-making & super-profit companies are not comparable for TP Deduction u/s Section 10A is available in respect of services provided by transmission of electronic data abroad, of the eligible candidates for employment in software industry Discussed proceedings u/s 201(1)/(1A)non deduction of tax at source-analyzed various treaties on the scope of FTS on the facts of the case- discussed the concept of ‘make available’ etc.admission of additional evidence u/R46A when CIT(A) calls for remand report

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

15

Pankaj Extrusion Ltd. vs. ACIT Amro Bank N.V. vs. CIT

Page

2011-ITRVHC-GUJ-061 2011-ITRVHC-KOL-073

2011-ITRVHC-KAR-149

ITAT (Mumbai)

ITAT (Mumbai)

ITAT (Delhi)

Court of Appeal Canada

Software embedded in off-shore supply may be taxable even if supply not taxable. Despite FAR matching, Loss Co to be excluded in transfer pricing, if failure to disclose not alleged DTAA does not protect tax evaders. Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed to probe Black Money AO has to decide “preliminary issue” whether sale of shares of Foreign Co by Non-Resident to Non-Resident attracts Indian tax CBDT’s view, that +/-5% variation amendment applies to pending proceedings is incorrect Disallowance of costs on ground that Associated Enterprises also benefited is not permissible Sale of shares by Mauritius Co can be treated as sale by 100% USA parent. Sale of shares of foreign company is taxable if object is to acquire the Indian assets Explained the General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Jurisdictional CIT should not be part of DRP to avoid likelihood of bias

ITAT (Mumbai)

Non-resident, even with “business connection”, can be taxed only in respect of business operations carried out in India. While canvassing agent is not “business connection”, fair fee extinguishes non-resident’s liability to tax Stated important Principles on comparability & +/-5% adjustment under Transfer Pricing

ITAT (Delhi)

Supreme Court

Karnataka High Court

2011-ITRViPolicy Network ITAT-DEL-165 Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

ITAT (Delhi)

2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE166 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-169

Patni Computer Systems Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Adiya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors vs. Dy. DIT & Ors

ITAT (Pune)

2011-ITRVCANADA-170

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM177

Triad Gestco Ltd. vs. Her Majesty the Queen Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors Adl. CIT vs. Star Cruise India Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.

2011-ITRVITAT-HYD178

DCIT vs. Deloitte Consulting India P. Ltd.

2011-ITRVHC-UTK-174

Discussed Transfer Pricing principles on use of multi-year data, turnover filter, risk adjustment and +/- 5% adjustment Loss/High-Profit companies need not per se be excluded in Transfer Pricing cases.

Mumbai High Court

ITAT (Hyderabad)

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

16

2011-ITRVSC-148

Symantec Software Solutions P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Exxon Mobil Company India P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Raytheon Company vs. Dy. DIT Yum ! Restaurants (India) P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT Ram Jethmalani & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors Richter Holding Ltd. vs. ADIT & Ors

Page

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM126 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM138 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-139 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-144

Authority for Advance Ruling Authority for Advance Ruling

2011-ITRVHC-KAR-185

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. DRP General Electric Company & Anrs vs. Dy. DIT & Ors

Karnataka High Court

ITO vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd

ITAT (Mumbai)

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-190

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM197 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM198 2011-ITRVAUS-199

Addl. CIT vs. TII Team Telecom International P. Ltd International Business Machines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Taxation 2011-ITRVACIT vs. Anchor ITAT-MUMHealth and Beauty 200 Care Pvt. Ltd 2011-ITRVSamsung Heavy ITAT-DEL-204 Industries Ltd. vs. ADIT 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-206 2011-ITRVITAT-BANG207 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-209 2011-ITRVITAT-HYD214 2011-ITRV-

General Electric Company & Anrs vs. DDIT ING Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. DDIT

Delhi High Court

ITAT (Mumbai)

Non-residents not eligible for benefit of second proviso to s. 112 Off-shore supplies are not taxable despite composite contract & PE’s role in clearance If AO has allowed s. 10A deduction, DRP cannot withdraw it An Indian agent of a non-resident can be held as a representative assessee of the latter, only in respect of income with which the agent has connection FTS second exception mentioned in Sec.9(1)(vii)(b) would cover even payment made in relation for future source of income Income from license of software is not assessable as “royalty”

Federal Court of Australia

Software License income is assessable as “Royalty”

ITAT (Mumbai)

Fee for “user of name” and “accreditation” not taxable as “royalty”

ITAT (Delhi)

Laid down important principles on “splitting of turnkey contracts”, role of PE & taxability of profits from offshore supply Even if a person is assessed as “Representative Assessee”, there is no liability for unconnected income Fee for use of software is taxable as “Royalty”

Delhi High Court ITAT (Bangalore)

Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT Four Soft Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

Delhi High Court ITAT (Hyderabad)

Dresser-Rand India

ITAT (Mumbai)

Profits attributable to “Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment” is Taxable in India TP legislation cannot be applied in case of corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its subsidiary Explained the Transfer Pricing and “Cost

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

17

In Re Crain U.K. Holding Ltd In Re LS Cable Ltd

Page

2011-ITRVAAR-179 2011-ITRVAAR-182

2011-ITRVITAT-BANG223 2011-ITRVAAR-226

Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

ITAT (Bangalore)

In Re Millennium IT Software Ltd.

2011-ITRVHC-UTK-234

CIT vs. BKI / HAM

Authority for Advance Rulings Uttarakhand High Court

2011-ITRVHC-KAR-246

CIT & Anrs vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.

Karnataka High Court

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM257 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM261

Asst DIT vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) P. Ltd

ITAT (Mumbai)

2011-ITRVAAR-266

In Re Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault

2011-ITRVHC-KAR-268

CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-290

DIT vs. Ericsson AB

2011-ITRVAithent ITAT-DEL-293 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2011-ITRVRanbaxy

Contribution Agreements” Law ITAT (Mumbai)

ITAT (Mumbai)

ITAT (Mumbai)

Authority for Advance Rulings Karnataka High Court Delhi High Court ITAT (Delhi)

Delhi High

DRP’s power to “enhance” confined to issues raised in draft assessment order. “Future losses” allowable as deduction Even unrelated parties can be “associated enterprises” if there is “de facto” control. High profit/loss companies are not per se un-comparable. TPO cannot go into issues not specifically referred to him Explained the important principles of Transfer Pricing & Sale of IPRs License fee for Software, even if “copyrighted article”, is taxable as “royalty” Fact of “Office PE” under Article 5(2) is irrelevant if there is no “Construction Site PE” under Article 5(3) S. 10A/B continue to “exempt” profits and so loss of other units (eligible & noneligible, including B/f loss) are not liable for set-off against s. 10A/B profits Payment for “live telecast” of event is not “royalty” nor arising from “business connection” If TPO does not give cogent reasons to reject a comparable, it must be presumed to be comparable & DR cannot argue to the contrary Gains arising on sale of shares of foreign company by Non-Resident to NonResident is taxable in India if the foreign co only held Indian assets Income from licence of software assessable as “royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) and tax was to pay tax u/s 201 Profits from offshore supply of equipment & software is not taxable in India u/s 9 CUP method will determine ALP of interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes AO’s self-determination of ALP without

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

18

Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl CIT Dredging International N.V. vs. Asst. DIT Diageo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT

Page

ITAT-MUM216 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM217 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM218

HC-DEL-295 2011-ITRVITAT-BANG298

Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

Court ITAT (Bangalore)

referring to TPO is “erroneous & prejudicial to interests of revenue” Set out important Principles on scope, data & comparability for determining ALP for the purpose of transfer pricing

INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY Citation 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM013 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-068

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM104 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM162 2011-ITRV-HCALL-208

Appellant vs. Respondent DCIT vs. Reclamation Reality India P. Ltd. CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba

Tivoli Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd. vs. ACIT ITO vs. Shanaya Enterprises The Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. vs. CIT

Court

Held

ITAT For s. 23(1)(a) only municipal valuation has to be (Mumbai) taken. Notional Interest on deposit not includible in “Annual Value” u/s 23(1)(a) & 23(1)(b) Delhi High Court

For Annual Value u/s 23, notional interest on deposit not includible. Municipal value is ordinarily ALV for s. 23 though AO entitled to depart for sufficient cause. ITAT For s. 23(1)(a) ALV, AO not bound by standard (Mumbai) rent/ rateble value & can adjust if interest-free deposit reason for low actual rent ITAT Property rental assessable as “business profits” if (Mumbai) commercial activities carried out Allahabad Rent from Leave and License of office premises High taxable as “business profits” Court

2011-ITRVHC-MUM-016 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM030

Appellant vs. Respondent Associated Capsules P. Ltd. vs. Dy CIT Reliance Infrastruscture Ltd. v. Adl. CIT

Court

Held

Mumbai High Court

S. 80-IA(9) cannot be interpreted to mean that s. 80-IA deduction has to be reduced for computing s. 80HHC deduction For s. 80-IA (8), tariff fixed by MERC for sale of power does not reflect “market value”

ITAT (Mumbai)

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

Page

Citation

19

DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VIA

2011-ITRVITAT-KOL-196

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-241

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM249 2011-ITRVITAT-BANG250 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-251 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-300

Despite absorption in earlier year, s. 80-IA unit loss to be set-off against s. 80-IA profits

ITAT Despite bar in s. 80HHE, Non-Residents eligible (Ahmedabad) for deduction in view of non-discrimination clause in DTAA Mumbai Pre AY 05-06, a project approved as “housing High Court project” by local authority is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) irrespective of extent of commercial user J.K. Aluminium ITAT (Delhi) Despite Supreme Court in Liberty India, Excise Co. vs. ACIT Refund is Eligible for s. 80IB Laxmi Civil ITAT (Pune) S. 80-IA(4) deduction is available even to Engg. P. Ltd. vs. contractor who merely develops but does not Addl CIT operate & maintain the infrastructure facility EIH Ltd. vs. CIT Kolkatta Foods & beverages supplied to International High Court Airlines would qualify for export sales u/s 80HHC Dy. CIT vs. ITAT Deduction u/s 80IB would be admissible in Rajesh Kr. (Kolkatta) respect of the job charges received and sale of Drolia (SB) spare parts of moulds sold, but not in respect of receipt of repairs and maintenance charges of moulds sold to the customers CIT vs. Nectar Delhi High Interest on FDR placed as margin money for Life Science Court opening LC is assessable as business income & Ltd. should be netted off against the interest paid on borrowings for claiming deduction u/s 80HHC Addl. CIT vs. ITAT For s. 80-IB deduction, Modvat credit is The Total (Mumbai) “derived” from industrial undertaking Packaging Services Anil H. Lad vs. ITAT Loss & Depreciation of eligible unit prior to DCIT (Bangalore) “initial assessment year”, if set-off against other income, can not be notionally carried forward for purposes of section 80IA(5) CIT vs. Jyoti Mumbai For claiming deduction u/s. 80-IB “workers” Plastic Works High Court need not be “employees”, even persons Pvt. Ltd employed through agency would be workers Cosmo Films Delhi High Assessee should have set off the losses of the Ltd. vs. CIT Court amalgamating company pertaining to export business as well as that of non-export business from the profits of the business for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

20

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-105 2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE167 2011-ITRVHC-KOL-189

ITAT (Hyderabad)

Page

2011-ITRVHyderabad ITAT-HYD-036 Chemical Supplies Ltd. vs. ACIT 2011-ITRVShri Rajeev ITAT-AHD-048 Sureshbhai vs. ACIT 2011-ITRVCIT vs. Brahma HC-MUM-055 Associates

DEPRECIATION Citation 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-019 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-020

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-172

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd CIT vs Cosmo Films Ltd

Court

Held

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court

Despite non-user of asset, depreciation admissible if it is part of “block of assets” “Goodwill” is an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii) & eligible for depreciation

Delhi High Court

Despite Tax Avoidance, 100% Depreciation on Sale & Lease Back is allowable

SECTION 68

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-031 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-215

2011-ITRV-HCKOL-235 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-242

2011-ITRV-HCP&H-277

CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO CIT vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd CIT vs. Amar Chand & Sons

Court

Held

Delhi High In a case where public company it is possible that at Court relevant time, the assessee is not in a position to take the confirmation from each and every depositor, hence no addition u/s 68 on this ground Delhi High Laid down Principles of 'Cash Credits' for share Court application money u/s 68. Delhi High No addition u/s 68 in case of loans taken from the Court directors and shareholders if authenticity of transactions as executed between the assessee and its creditors is proved Kolkatta Assessee’s AO cannot question Creditor’s I. T. High Return for section 68 satisfaction Court Delhi High Assessee is not required to prove the genuineness of Court transactions as between its creditors and that of the creditor’s source of income i.e., sub-creditors u/s 68 Punjab & Haryana High Court

No onus on the assessee to prove source of the credit worthiness of the creditor

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

21

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-027

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd.

Page

Citation

CAPITAL VS. REVENUE

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-050

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. Logitronics P. Ltd. vs. CIT

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM072 2011-ITRV-SC075 2011-ITRV-HCJ&K-090

Dy. CIT vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd Guffic Chem P. Ltd. vs. CIT Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-150 2011-ITRV-HCKOL-154

Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd

Kolkatta High Court

2011-ITRV-HCMUM-157

CIT vs. Tata SSL Ltd

Mumbai High Court

2011-ITRV-HCMUM-164

CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. ACIT vs. Panama Petrochem Ltd

Mumbai High Court

CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. and CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRV-HCGUJ-194

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-245

Held

Delhi High Court

Mere book entries are not decisive of any income.

Delhi High Court

Question whether waiver of loan is income or not, depends on whether loan was used for capital or revenue purposes If claim is not allowed as “Bad Debt”, it can be claimed as “Business loss”. Website development expense is not capital expenditure Prior to AY 2002-03 non-compete compensation is a capital receipt, hence not taxable Refund of Excise Duty under subsidy scheme is a capital receipt & not taxable

ITAT (Mumbai) Supreme Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court ITAT (Delhi)

Gujarat High Court

Non compete fee is a capital expenditure and no depreciation or spread over is allowed Subsidy granted by State Govt. to the assessee for expansion of their capacities, modernisation and improving their marketing capabilities, hence assistance was on capital account and same therefore, constitutes capital receipt Payments made for obtaining connection of CNG which would facilitate manufacturing operations, but since ultimate ownership of it remained with Mahanagar Gas Ltd., such payments is not capital expenditure as no enduring benefit is accrued to assessee. ERP software package is allowable as revenue expenditure Interest earned from share application money statutorily required to be kept in separate bank account is in nature of business income & should be adjusted towards cost of raising share capital Expenditure on ‘Application Software’ is revenue in nature

22

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-028

Court

Page

Citation

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

2011-ITRV-SC267 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-291 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-294

CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT Airport Authority of India vs. CIT

Supreme Court Delhi High Court

High Court is to decide whether sales-tax subsidy is a capital receipt Amount paid for non-compete rights while acquiring business is capital expenditure

Delhi High Court (FB)

Explained the distinction between capital & revenue expenditure

CHARITY / EXEMPT INCOMES U/S 10 Citation 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-029

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-040 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-041 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM137

Appellant vs. Respondent Central Warehousing Corporation vs. ACIT. St. Lawrence Education Society vs. CIT Disha India Micro Credit vs. CIT Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT(E)

Court

Held

Delhi High Court

Only income derived from the letting out of godowns qualifies for exemption u/s 10 (29)

Delhi High Court

S. 10(23C)(vi) exemption cannot be rejected merely because there is a surplus

ITAT (Delhi) Activity of giving micro-finance & earning interest is “charitable purpose” ITAT Registration as Public Trust not necessary (Mumbai) for s. 12A “Charity” registration

CARRY FORWARD AND SET-OFF OF LOSSES

Tata Power Co. Ltd. vs. Addl CIT PCBL Industrial Ltd. vs. CIT

Court

Held

ITAT Brought forward Business Loss can be set-off (Mumbai) against dividends assessed as “income from other sources” if shares held for business ITAT S. 54EC deduction is allowable before set-off of (Mumbai) brought-forward loss. Kolkatta High Court

As the assessee’s principal business was granting of loans, therefore, explanation to section 73 would not be applicable

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

23

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM045 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM129 2011-ITRV-HCCAL-153

Appellant vs. Respondent DCIT vs. Gagan Trading Co. Ltd

Page

Citation

TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE

2011-ITRVAhmedabad Urban ITAT-AHD-101 Development Authority vs. ACIT 2011-ITRVStandard Chartered ITAT-MUMBank vs. Dy. DIT 110 2011-ITRVYahoo India P. Ltd. ITAT-MUMvs. DCIT 143 2011-ITRVBharti Shipyard ITAT-MUMLtd. vs. Dy CIT 210 2011-ITRVBhura Exports Ltd. HC-KOL-212 vs. ITO 2011-ITRVDy. CIT vs. S. K. ITAT-KOL-233 Tekriwal 2011-ITRVCIT vs. Kotak HC-MUM-244 Securities Ltd. 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-252 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-262 2011-ITRVHC-KAR-268 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM275 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM276

Court

Held

Delhi High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court ITAT (Ahemdabad)

No penalty for TDS breach if no “mala fide intention” or “deliberate defiance” of law. If s. 195(2) certificate is not withdrawn, assessee is not in s. 201 TDS default.

ITAT (Mumbai)

“Equipment-Use” is not royalty if payer has no control over equipment

ITAT (Mumbai)

For “Equipment Royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi), control of equipment by is payer essential.

ITAT (Mumbai)

S. 40(a)(ia) amendment by Finance Act 2010 is not retrospective.

Kolkatta High Court ITAT (Kolkatta) Mumbai High Court

There is no time bar for passing order u/s 201(1)/(1A). No s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance for shortdeduction of TDS default “Transaction charges” paid to BSE is “fees for technical services” & TDS deductible u/s 194-J Laid down the Tests to distinguish “transportation contract” from “hire contract” for TDS under 194-I or 194C For TDS purposes Assessing Officer in place of payment has no jurisdiction if assessee is assessed outside Income from licence of software assessable as “royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) and tax was to pay tax u/s 201 For purposes of deduction u/s 194 I there is a distinction between “hire of vehicles” & “transportation contract” For purposes of section 194-I to be “Rent”, payee must have “control” over asset. There is a distinction between ‘the use of an asset’ and the ‘benefit derived from an asset’

ITO (TDS) vs. Indian Oil Corporation Indian Newspaper Society vs. ITO (TDS) CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd

ITAT (Delhi)

Mumbai High Court

SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS)

ITAT (Mumbai)

Chattisgargh State Electricity Board vs. ITO(TDS)

ITAT (Mumbai)

Karnataka High Court

Even fixed charges for hire of vehicles are not “rent” for s. 194-I.

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

24

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-064 2011-ITRVHC-P&H-069

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd. CIT vs Swaraj Mazda Ltd

Page

Citation

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-296

SRL Ranbaxy Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT

ITAT (Delhi)

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-299

CIT vs. Expeditors International (India) P. Ltd.

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRVHC-DEL-301

CIT vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd

Delhi High Court

Tests to determine “Principal-Agent” Relationship explained for purpose of commission u/s 194H Payments made by assessee to its parent company for Global Management expenses is in nature of reimbursement which are not chargeable to tax, and thus, no TDS u/s 195 Not deducting TDS on VRS paid to employees over and above the admissible exemption u/s 10(10C) was not a default as there was sufficient and reasonable reasons for not deducting such TDS

PARTNERSHIP Citation 2011-ITRVHC-HP-067 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-78 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-247

Appellant vs. Respondent Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs. ITO Madhu Rani Mehra vs. CIT

Court

Held

Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court

CBDT Circular which specifies that for s. 40(b)(v), the partnership deed should specify the remuneration, is invalid Capital asset treated as stock-in-trade of proprietary business received on dissolution of partnership firm has to be valued at market value Partnership Deed must quantify or lay down the manner of quantifying remuneration to partners for allowbility u/s 40(b)(v).

Sood Brij & Associates vs. CIT

Delhi High Court

2011-ITRV-HCDEL-109 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-224 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-270 2011-ITRV-HCKOL-274

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Ankitech P. Ltd CIT vs. National Travel Services CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT

Court

Held

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Kolkatta High Court

S. 2(22)(e) “deemed dividend” not assessable if recipient not shareholder. For purpose of s. 2(22)(e), firm is “shareholder” though shares are held in names of partners “Trade Advances” are not “loans & advances” for the purposes of s. 2(22)(e) “Non-gratuitous” advances to substantial shareholder is not deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

Page

Citation

25

DEEMED DIVIDEND

SECTION 36 / 37 / OTHER DISALLOWANCE Citation 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-106 2011-ITRV-HCDEL-125 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM142 2011-ITRV-HCGUJ-192

2011-ITRV-HCMP-201

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM210 2011-ITRVITAT-KOL-233 2011-ITRV-HCMUM-260

2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE282

Appellant vs. Respondent Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT

Court

Held

Delhi High Court

If “bad debt” not allowable u/s 36(1)(vii), claim for deduction u/s 37(1) can be raised for first time even before High Court Professional’s heart surgery expense not deductible u/s 31 or 37(1).[ S. 36(1)(ii) bars tax avoidance scheme of paying commission instead of dividend.

Shanti Bhushan Delhi High vs. CIT Court Dalal Broacha ITAT Stock Broking P. (Mumbai) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT CIT vs. Hi Rel Gujarat High If an expenditure is undisputedly incurred for Electronics Pvt. Court business purposes, then the same would be Ltd allowed irrespective whether the same is in the nature of prior period expense CIT vs. Madhya While kidnapping is an offense, paying ransom Khemchand Pradesh is not; Bar in Explanation 1 to s. 37(1) not Motilal Jain High Court attracted and the payment is allowable as Tobbaco business expenditure Products Pvt. Ltd Bharti Shipyard ITAT S. 40(a)(ia) amendment by Finance Act 2010 is Ltd. vs. Dy CIT (Mumbai) not retrospective. Dy. CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal CIT vs. The Stock and Bond Trading Company Dy. CIT vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd

ITAT (Kolkatta) Mumbai High Court

No s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance for short-deduction of TDS default Penalty/ Fine for violation of procedural law is not hit by Explanation to s. 37(1) and the same is allowable as deduction

ITAT (Pune) VRS expenditure incurred by the assessee company is an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act

2011-ITRV-HC-

Appellant vs. Respondent CIT vs. Sai

Court

Held

26

Citation

Punjab &

S. 40A(3) Disallowance can be made in Block

Page

GP RATIO / BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS / VALUATION OFFICER

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

P&H-077

Metal Works

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-159

Lalsons Jewellers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT ACIT vs. R. L. Traders ADIT vs. Shri Ranjay Gulati

2011- ITRVITAT-DEL-160 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-161

Haryana High Court ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Delhi) ITAT (Delhi)

Assessment even if GP estimated Non filing of confirmation from the loaner cannot be a basis for rejection of books of accounts No addition is warranted simply because there is fall in Gross Profit ratio in certain years No addition could be made, on the facts of the case, merely on the basis of DVO's report.

MISCELLANEOUS

2011-ITRV-SC059 2011-ITRVHC-P&H-077 2011-ITRVHC-UTR-091 2011-ITRVITAT-RJT-146 2011-ITRVHC-MUM-151

2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-152 2011-ITRVHC-CAL-155

DIT vs Maersk Co. Ltd VineetKumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO CIT vs. Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd.

Delight Developers P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Goodricke Ltd. vs. CIT

Court

Held

Supreme Court

The law requiring PSUs to obtain COD approval is recalled

Supreme Court

Parliament can only make laws for India and any law which has no impact on or nexus with India would be ultra-vires. S. 40A(3) disallowance can be made in Block Assessment even if GP estimated

Punjab and Haryana High Court Uttarakhand High Court ITAT (Rajkot) Mumbai High Court

ITAT (Delhi) Kolkatta High Court

Employee is not liable to pay s. 234B interest for failure to pay advance tax on salary. HUF is a “relative” for gifts exemption u/s 56(2)(v), (vi) & (vii) Excisable goods lying in closing stock, the liablity to pay excise duty would crystalise only on the date of clearance of such goods, and not on the date of manufacture of the same, the same cannot be added under section 43B Mere advance for the commercial space was given by the assessee would be treated as the date of setting up business Addition u/s 41(1) could not be made merely because the creditor had failed to encash the cheque issued by the assessee and the same could not be held to be remission/cessation of

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in

27

2011-ITRVITAT-SC-042

Appellant vs. Respondent Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. UOI & Anrs. GVK Inds. Ltd & Anrs vs. ITO & Anrs CIT vs. Sai Metal Works

Page

Citation

2011-ITRV-SC163

2011-ITRVHC-MUM-180 2011-ITRVITAT-PUNE205 2011-ITRVITAT-MUM219 2011-ITRVITAT-DEL-239

Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs. Hon'able Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors Sahney Kirkwood P. Ltd. vs Addl CIT Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation vs. ACIT DCIT vs. Stup Consultants Pvt. Ltd Addl DIT vs. Alcatel Lucent USA INC

Supreme Court

the liability Question of “bias” in judicial function must be seen from “reasonable man’s” perspective

Mumbai High Court

Tax Planning transaction is not “Sham” if parties assessed

ITAT(Pune) There would be no s. 40A(9) disallowance for statutory corps as their Service Regulations have “force of law” ITAT (Mumbai)

Despite s. 209(3) of the Co’s Act, company can follow cash system for tax purposes

ITAT (Delhi)

Interest u/s 234B would not be charged where the income of the non-resident assessee was subject to TDS u/s 195, irrespective whether such tax was actually deducted or not Lease rental which was accepted as business income in earlier years cannot be treated differently where there is temporary lull in the business of the assessee during the year as against the cessation of business Govt’s decision not to appoint ITAT Members till amendment providing for 2 years’ appointment The President of the Tribunal has no power to write the Members’ ACR

2011-ITRVITAT-MUM240

K P Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

ITAT (Mumbai)

2011-ITRV-SC256

UOI & Anrs vs. Pradeep Kumar Kedia & Anrs Uttam Bir Singh Bedi vs. Union of India Bill & Peggy Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT In Re Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd

Supreme Court

2011-ITRVHC-MAD-269 2011-ITRVHC-DEL-285

Delhi High Court

Interest u/s 234C is mandatory and automatic

Authority Pendency of question in payee’s hands disbars for Advance payer’s application for advance ruling u/s 245R Ruling

Page

28

2011-ITRVAAR-288

Madras High Court

Secure your documents online and access them 24X7 at any place of the world S. No. Status Subscription per annum 1 Individual / HUF not having business income Rs. 500/2 Other entities except companies having business income Rs. 750/3 Companies Rs. 1000/-

http://www.itrvault.in