SEMINAR ON AUDIT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 59
About This Presentation
Title:

SEMINAR ON AUDIT

Description:

rolta india ltd. 330 itr 470 (sc) same decision was rendered in the case of amtek auto ltd vs cit ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:339
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 60
Provided by: Deepthi8
Category:
Tags: audit | seminar | rolta

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: SEMINAR ON AUDIT


1
SEMINAR ON AUDIT
2
  • CIT VS. GURUKUL GATKESWAR TRUST
  • 332 ITR 611 (AP)
  • EXEMPTION U/S 11
  • AMOUNTS UTILISED FOR PERSONS WHO ARE OF INTEREST
    TO TRUSTEE OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY. LOANS GIVEN TO
    FIRM IN WHICH PRESIDENT OF TRUST WAS PARTNER,
    LOAN GIVEN TO THE WIDOW OF FOUNDER OF THE TRUST
    ETC.
  • EXEMPTION NOT ALLOWABLE SINCE THERE IS VOILATION
    OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(2).

3
  • CIT vs. Truck operators Association 328 ITR 636
    (Ph)
  • Exemption u/s 11
  • The association was not formed for advancement of
    object of general public utility within the
    meaning of section 2(15). The welfare activities
    adopted by the asseessee for the truck drivers,
    cleaners and mechanics of truck owners were in
    the nature of staff welfare activities as are
    common in other business organisations, which
    cannot be termed for general public utility.
    There is no charitable purpose and not entitled
    for registration u/s 12AA.

4
  • Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 417 (Bom.
    HC)
  • Business Income
  • Benefit or perquisite u/s 28(iv) loan taken for
    trading activity was waived by the loanee. Thus
    upon waiver, the amount was retained by the
    assessee in the business. It would be treated as
    benefit or perquisite u/s 28(iv)

5
  • FEDERAL BANK LTD VS ACIT - 332 ITR 319 (KER)
  • DEPRECIATION EPABX MOBILEPHONES ARE NOT
    COMPUTERS. NOT ENTITILED FOR 60 DEPRECIATION

6
  • BHAGWATI APPLIANCE (NOW DAIRY DEN LTD) VS. CIT
  • 337 ITR 286 (GUJ)
  • HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR VEHICLES
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEASE AND HIRE. IF MOTOR
    VEHICLE IS LEASED AND NOT ON HIRE, NO HIGHER
    DEPRECIATION AT 50 ALLOWABLE.
  • FOLLOWED APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT
    VS. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT LTD. 305 ITR 132.

7
  • CIT VS. PADMAVATI HATCHERIES PVT LTD.
  • 241 CTR 171 (AP)
  • PLANT BUILDING, DEPRECIATION U/S 32
  • POULTRY SHED USED FOR GROWING CHICKS, HATCHING
    AND INCUBATING THEIR EGGS IS NOT A PLANT. NO
    HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS PLANT.
    DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE ONLY AS A BUILDING.

8
  • N.D. JOSEPH Vs. CIT 325 ITR200(kerala)
  • Depreciation
  • For the entitlement of higher rate of
    depreciation, the main/major use of vehicle
    should be of letting out on hire and not using
    for the assesses own business. The tipper, trucks
    and JCB being predominantly used for assessees
    own business, no higher rate of depreciation is
    useful.

9
  • CIT Vs. Vijaya Enterprises and others 332 ITR 235
    (AP)
  • Depreciation.
  • Shuttering materials used in the construction
    company cannot be treated as one whole shuttering
    material forming one plant. The assessee is not
    eligible for 100 per cent depreciation under 1st
    provision 32(i). Each similar or dissimilar
    component or unit forming part of the whole
    shuttering material is not entitled for 100 per
    cent depreciation as a plant. The entire
    shuttering material forming one integrated unit
    has to be considered for applying proviso 2 sn.
    32(1)(ii)

10
  • JK PANTHANKI CO. VS. ITO - 139 TTJ 337 (BANG)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 37(1)
  • SECRET COMMISSION PAID BY ASSESSEE TO DIRECTORS
    OF COMPANY TO PROCURE CONTRACTS. HELD THAT SUCH
    PAYMENT OF KICK BACKS IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF
    EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 37(1).

11
  • CIT vs Gyan Chand Labour Contractors 316ITR 127
  • Business expenditure u/s 37
  • The income was estimated by applying certain net
    profit rate after rejecting the books. No
    separate deduction of freight charges is
    allowable. While making the estimate all
    expenses referred to u/s 29 are deemed to have
    been taken into consideration. What was implicit
    earlier, has been explicit by incorporating
    section 44AD w.e.f. 01-04-1994

12
  • NAHAR POLYFILMS LTD. VS. CIT - 201 TAXMAN 304
    (PH)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(iii)
  • INTEREST ON TERM LOAN RAISED FOR ACQUISITION OF
    MACHINERY. INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN TO BE
    DISALLOWED TILL THE TIME SUCH MACHINERY WAS PUT
    TO USE.

13
  • CIT Vs. Popular vehicles and Services Ltd.
  • 325 ITR 523
  • Interest deduction u/s 36(1)(iii)
  • Assessee borrowed huge amounts and advanced the
    same to a firm, interest free in which the
    assessee company is a partner. Since, the share
    of income from the partnership firm, which is the
    only consideration for advancing the loan does
    not constitute income as per section
    10(2)(a)(exempted income), Sn.14A is applicable
    and the interest expenditure is not allowable in
    the hands of assessee company.

14
  • Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. CIT 320
    ITR 420(Delhi)
  • Business deduction u/s 35D- amortisation of
    preliminary expenses
  • The activity of construction can, by no stretch
    of imagination can be treated as manufacturing
    activity. Hence, no deduction allowable u/s 35D.
  • Followed decisions in the case CIT vs. N.C.
    Buddha Raja and Company 204 ITR 412 (SC)

15
  • CIT VS Smt. SWAPNA ROY - 331 ITR 367 (ALL)
  • Sn. 57(iii)
  • INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EXPENDITURE MUST BE
    WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED TO EARN INCOME
    INTENTION TO EARN INCOME MUST BE PROVED BY
    ASSESSE
  • BORROWED FUNDS INVESTED IN FINANCIALLY FRAGILE
    SISTER CONCERNS NO INTENTION TO EARN INCOME BUT
    MERELY TO ASSIST THOSE CONCERNS.

16
  • CIT VS DHANALAKSHMI WEAVING WORKS - 331 ITR 188
    (KER)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 57 (iii)
  • INTEREST RECIVED ON TERM DEPOSITS. THE INTREST
    PAID TO THE BANK ON BORROWALS USED FOR BUSINESS
    PURPOSES CANNOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST SUCH INTREST
    ON DEPOSITES.

17
  • ROLLA TAIMERS LTD VS. CIT
  • 339 ITR 54 (DEL)
  • CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1)
  • LOAN WRITTEN OFF IN THE CASH CREDIT A/C, BARROWED
    FOR DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS, FORMING A PART OF
    CIRCULATING CAPITAL, AMOUNTS TO BENEFIT ASSESSBLE
    U/S 41(1) OF TH ACT.

18
  • SUSHIL KUMAR MOHNANI VS. ITO
  • 131 ITD 237 (JAB), 138 TTJ 150
  • ADDITION U/S 68
  • ASSESSEE INTRODUCED RS. 13.27 LAKHS UNDER THE
    GUISE OF GIFTS.
  • HELD THAT APART FROM IDENTITY AND CAPACITY,
    ASSESSEE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THE KIND OF
    RELATIONSHIP, THE KIND OF LOVE AND AFFTETION OF
    THE DONER AND ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
    GIFTS ARE MADE. EXPLANATION SHOULD BE PROPER,
    REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE.

19
Cash Credit
  • CIT VS OASIS HOSPITALITIES PVT LTD. 333 ITR119
    (DEL)
  • CASH CREDITS Sn.69. SHARE APPLICATION MONEY
    - IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS NOT PROVED.
    ADDITION SUSTAINED
  • CIT VS LOVELY EXPORTS - 319 ITR 5 (SC)
    DISTINGUISHED

20
  • STAR INDIA LTD. VS. ADDL CIT
  • 65 DTR 169 (MUM J-BENCH)
  • DEDUCTION U/C VIA
  • FOR COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION BROUGHT
    FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED.
  • FOLLOWED APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. SHIRKE
    CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. 291 ITR 380

21
  • CIT VS GITWAKO FARMA (I) PVT LTD - 332 ITR 471
    (DEL)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB.
  • CONVERSION OF RAW FISH IN TO TINNED FISH AFTER
    PROCESSING THE ACTIVITY IS NOT MANUFACTURING
    HENCE NOT ELIGIBILE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB

22
  • CIT VS. ARIF INDUSTRIES LTD.
  • 339 ITR 6 (ALL) (LUKNOW BENCH)
  • DEDUCTION U/C VIA
  • SC. 80AB R/W SC 80B(5) OVER RIDES THE DEDUCTIONS
    ALLOWABLE UNDER SPECIFIC SECTIONS. PROFITS TO BE
    ASCERTAINED AFTER SETTING OFF WITH UNABSORBED
    BUSINESS LOSSES PROFITS OF SOME UNITS TO BE SET
    OFF WITH LOSSES OF OTHER UNITS BEFORE ALLOWING
    THE DEDUCTION.

23
  • GREAT EASTERN EXPORT VS CIT - 332 ITR 14 (DEL)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC 80 IA RELIEF U/S 80 IA
    TO BE REDUSED FROM PROFITS GAINS OF BUSINESS
    BEFORE COMPUTING RELIEF U/s 80 HHC

24
  • OLAM EXPORT INDIA PVT LTD VS CIT - 332 ITR 40
    (KER)
  • ASSESSEE NOT ENTITILED TO SIMULTANEOUS DEDUCTION
    U/S 80 IB 80 HHC BY VIRTUE OF SPECIFIC
    EXCLUSION U/S 80 IB 13
  • IN ASSOCIATED CAPSUIES PVT LTD VS CIT 332 ITR 42
    (BOM) IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITILED FOR
    DUDUCTION UNDER BOTH SECTIONS

25
  • CIT VS MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD - 332 ITR 91 (GAU)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB TRANSPORT SUBSIDY
    INTEREST SUBSIDY ARE NOT PROFITS OF BUSINESS.
    THEY ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION
    U/S 80 IB
  • SAME PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY APEX COURT IN
    LIBERTY INDIA VS CIT 317 ITR 218

26
  • CIT VS PARLE PLASTIC LTD - 332 ITR 63 (BOM)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA FOR DETERMINATION OF
    BUSINESS INCOME, DEPRECIATION TO BE DEDUCTED EVEN
    IF NOT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE
  • SAME DECISION RENDERED IN PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD
    V/S CIT 318 ITR 352

27
  • CIT VS SWANI SPICE MILLS PVT LTD - 332 ITR 288
    (BOM)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC ASSESSEE IN EXPORTS
    BUSINESS THE SURPLUS FUNDS USED FOR BILL
    DISCOUNTING AND FOR MAKING DEPOSITES. INCOME
    EARNED TO BE EXCLUDED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC

28
  • FRIENDS CASTING PVT LTD VS CIT - 340 ITR 305
    (PH)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF JOB
    WORK NOT A RESULT OF MANUFACTURING OR BY
    PRODUCING ARTICLE OR THING. RECEIPTS FROM JOB
    WORK CHARGES TO BE EXCLUDED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80
    IA

29
  • PUBJAB STATE CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION
  • VS
  • CIT
  • 336 ITR 501 (PH)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(a)(i)
  • ASSESSEE IS AN APEX BODY OF VARIOUS CO-OP.
    SOCIETIES AND ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING AND SALE
    OF MILK PRODUCTS OF ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES AND
    CLAIMED THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME AS DEDUCTION.
    IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CREDIT FACILITY PROVIDED TO
    ITS MEMBERS WAS RELATING TO THE OUTSTANDING DUES
    AND IT WAS ANCILLARY TO ITS MAIN OBJECT. SINCE
    ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF
    BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS
    MEMBERS, NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 80P
    (2)(a)(i).

30
  • ANTHONY MOTORS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 47 SOT 227
    (MUM)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80IA
  • THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SOLID WASTE
    MANAGEMENT. THE ACTIVITY WAS LIMITED TO CLEANING
    THE BEACHES WITHOUT BEING INVOLVED IN DISPOSAL,
    POLICY MAKING FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.
  • ASSESSEE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA

31
  • KANYAKA PARAMESWARI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS.
    ITO
  • ITA NO. 290 474/VIZAG/2010
  • DATED 28-06-2011
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11)
  • THE ASSESSEE HAD TWO CHAMBERS OF COLD STORAGE.
    OF WHICH ONE WAS COMMENCED AFTER THE DUE DATE.
    WHILE HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION IS UNDER TAKING
    SPECIFIC AND NOT ASSESSEE SPECIFIC, 80IB ALLOWED
    ONLY FOR THE FIRST CHAMBER.

32
  • LT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. ITO
  • 47 SOT 105 (ITAT, CHE A-BECH)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80IA.
  • ASSESSEE FIRM OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ROAD SIDE
    AMENITIES.
  • DOES NOT FORM PART OF BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING
    OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ROADS.
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) NOT ALLOWABLE.

33
  • TOTGARS CO-OP. SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. CIT
  • 188 TAXMAN 282 (SC)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 80P
  • INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE SURPLUS FUND DEPOSITED
    IN THE BANK DOES NOT FALL IN THE MEANING OF
    PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS.
  • SUCH INTEREST TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER
    SOURCES.

34
  • CIT vs. Kiran enterprises 327 ITR 520(HP)
  • Deduction u/s 80IA
  • Transport/freight subsidy received from Central
    Govt. to industries set up in remote areas does
    not constitute profits and gains derived from
    industrial undertaking and therefore not
    includable in profits eligible deduction u/s 80IA

35
  • CIT Vs. Plastics Ltd. And others 332 ITR 63
    (Bom.)
  • Deduction u/s 80IA
  • Treatment of depreciation not claimed by
    assessee Any deduction is allowable only after
    computing the gross total income after taking
    into consideration all the deductions allowable
    u/s 30 to 43 D of the Act. The Depreciation
    should be mandatorily deducted before computing
    profits of the business
  • Followed the decision in the case Plastiblends
    India Ltd. Vs. CIT 318 ITR 352 (Bom. Full bench)

36
  • CIT VS ILPEA PARAMOUNT PVT LTD - 336 ITR 54 (DEL)
  • COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 115 JA
    PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND DOUBTFUL
    ADVANCES CAN BE ADDED BACK. IN VIEW OF INSERTION
    OF CLAUSE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFCT FROM 01-04-98.

37
  • JOGINDER PAUL (HUF) VS CIT - 331 ITR 31 (PH)
  • FAILURE TO FILE RETURNS OF LOSS WITHIN TIME
    ALLOWED IN SECTION 139 (3) LOSS CANNOT BE
    ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF.

38
  • CIT VS ROCKMAN CYCLE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
  • 331 ITR 401 (PH) (FULL BENCH)
  • INCOME FROM OTHERS SOURCES- BORROWING FROM
    SISTER CONCERN ON PAYING HIGHER RATE AND
    INVESTING IN OTHER SISTER CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE
  • EXCESS INTEREST CLAIM DISALLOWED

39
  • CWT VS Smt. KR USHASREE OTHERS - 332 ITR 75
    (KER)
  • WEALTH TAX W.E.F 01-04-92, CASH IN HAND IN EXCESS
    OF RS.50,000/- OF INDIVIDUALS (HUF) CAN BE
    INCLUDED FOR PURPUSES OF WEALTH TAX

40
  • CIT VS KOTAK SECURITIES LTD - 340 ITR 333 (BOM)
  • DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ASSESSEE IN THE
    BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING TANSACTION CHARGES
    PAID TO STOCK EXCHANGE AND FOR MANAGERIAL
    SERVICES TDS APPLICABLE

41
  • PVS RAJU P RAJYA LAKSHMI VS CIT - 340 ITR 75
    (AP)
  • PURCHASE SALE OF SHARES
  • THE TRANSACTIONS CONSTITUTED BUSINESS FINDING
    BASED ON FREQUENCY,MAGNITUDE VOLUME OF
    TRANSACTIONS.
  • SIMILAR VIEW EXPRESSED BY ITAT HYD (A BENCH) IN
    SPECTRA SHARES

42
  • CIT VS SECUNDERABAD CLUB - 340 ITR 121 (AP)
  • MUTUAL CONCERN
  • CLUB HAVING DEFRENT KINDS OF MEMBERS.INTEREST
    FROM DEPOSITS IN BANKS NOT EXEMPT ON PRINCIPLE OF
    MUTUALITY

43
  • CIT VS HMT LTD
  • TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE
  • ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ORDERS
    PASSED U/S 201(1)(1A)AFTR 4 YEARS .
  • IT WAS HELD THAT ORDERS CULD NOT BE ANNULLED ON
    THE GROUND OF DELAY LACHES

44
  • AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS CCIT
  • 339 ITR 333
    (AP)
  • CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
  • INSTITUTION SHOULD EXIST SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF
    EDUCATION WITH NO OTHER OBJECTS.
  • IN VIEW OF 14TH PROVISO TO SC. 10(23C) INSERTED
    W.E.F. 01-06-2006, DELAY IN APPLICATION CANNOT BE
    CONDONED.

45
  • CIT VS.
    STEEL STEIPS LEASING LTD.
  • 338 ITR 455 (PH)
  • CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B 234C
  • INTEREST CHARGEBLE U/S 234B 234C IF ADVANCE TAX
    IS NOT PAID IN RESPECT OF TAX PAYABLE U/S 115JA
    115JB.

  • FOLLOWED CIT VS. ROLTA INDIA LTD.

  • 330 ITR 470 (SC)
  • SAME DECISION WAS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF AMTEK
    AUTO LTD VS CIT

  • 338 ITR 550 (PH)

46
  • CIT VS. AMBICA APPALAM DEPOT
  • 340 ITR 497 (MAD)
  • PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A)
  • DIARY SEIZED DURING SURCH ACTION SHOWING HIGHER
    COST OF INVESTMENT THAN DECLARED IN THE RETURN
    FILED AUTHOR OF THE DIARY WAS SON OF A PARTNER.
    PRESUMPTION OF A-O AGAINST TH ASSESSEE IS VALID
    U/S 132(4A) ADDITION UPHELD.

47
  • ITO VS. SR SUPPLIERS COMMISSION AGENT
  • 42(II) ITCL 577(AHD, C-BENCH)
  • DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) UPHELD BY THE ITAT WHERE
    CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDED RS. 20,000/- AT AN
    INSTANCE.

48
  • CIT VS. NAMDHARI SEEDS PVT. LTD.- 42(I) ITCL 306
    (KAR-HC)
  • AGRICULTURAL INCOME
  • ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN CONTRACT FARMING THROUGH LAND
    OWNERS WHO ARE AGRICULTURISTS. AGREMENT WITH
    LAND OWNERS FOR CULTIVATION OF HYBRIDE SEEDS AS
    PER SPECIFICATIONS.
  • INCOME FROM SALE OF SEEDS IS NOT AGRICULTURAL
    INCOME.

49
  • PRADEEP KUMAR HARLAKA VS. ACIT
  • 41(II) ITCL 392 (MUM C BENCH)
  • CAPITAL GAINS DEDUCTION U/S 48
  • FEE PAID TO PORTFOLIO MANAGER FOR RENDERRING
    PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND PROFIT SHARING
    FEES IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 48 WHILE COMPUTING
    CAPITAL GAINS.

50
  • ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. VS. ACIT
  • 44 SOT 601 (MUM I-BENCH)
  • CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  • ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON LAYING APPROACH
    ROAD TO FACTORY PREMISES ON LAND OWNED BY
    GOVERNMENT. EXPENDITURE HELD TO BE CAPITAL IN
    NATURE AND NOT DEDUCTABLE.

51
  • SWAYAM CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. VS. ITO
  • 336 ITR 189 (AP)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 10B
  • EXPORT OUT OF INDIA GOODS TRANSFERRED TO INDIAN
    CONSIGNEE ON BEHALF OF FOREIGN BUYER. THE MERE
    FACT OF MOVEMENT OF GOODS TO ANOTHER 100 EOU,
    ALLEGED TO BE AGENT OF FOREIGN BUYER DOES NOT
    MEAN AN EXPORT OUT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE MUST
    PROVE EXPORT BY EVIDENCE OF CLEARENCE AT ANY
    CUSTOMS STATION.

52
  • CIT VS AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.
  • 43(I) ITCL 197 (DEL)
  • INTEST ON TDS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT
  • INTEREST PAYABLE U/S 201(1A) IS MANDATORY
    PROVISION.

53
  • CIT VS. LOTUS ROOFINGS PVT LTD.
  • 63 DTR 254 (MAD)
  • DEDUCTION U/S 43B
  • ASSESSEE MADE A PROVISION IN THE PL A/C FOR
    INTEREST PAYABLE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. NO
    ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE.
  • DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER SEC. 43B

54
  • CIT VS. DR. T.K. DAYALU - 60 DTR 403 (KARNATAKA)
  • CAPITAL GAINS ACCRUAL
  • ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
    AGREEMENT AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION ON 30TH
    MAY, 1996. AND THE CASH PART OF THE AGREEMENT
    ALSO RECEIVED ON THAT DAY.
  • THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR TAXING THE
    CAPITAL GAINS IS A.Y.1997-98.
  • ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT CAPITAL GAINS TO BE
    CHARGED IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
    NOT ACCEPTABLE.

55
  • DCIT VS. GOUSIA BAGUM OTHERS
  • ITA NOS. 1024-27, 1268-71/H/2011
  • CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
  • THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED AT NARSING
    VILLAGE OF FALLING WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF
    RAJENDRANAGAR, R.R. DIST. IT ALSO FALLS WITHIN 8
    KMS OF HMC.
  • ITAT HELD THAT IT IS AN URBAN LAND
    NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT IS 8KMS AWAY FROM
    RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPALITY.
  • THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SRI SRINIVAS PANDIT
    HUF VS. ITO, ITA NO. 56/HYD/07 REVERSED.

56
  • CIT Vs IDEA Cellular Ltd. (325 ITR 148)(Delhi)
  • Tax Deduction at Source
  • The commission or discount passed on to the
    distributors of sim cards/recharge coupons is
    commission and there exists the relationship of
    an agent and Principal. TDS is to be deducted as
    per Sn. 194H

57
  • Vodafone Essar Cellular VS. CIT 332 ITR 235
    (Kerala)
  • Tax Deduction at source.
  • Discount given to distributors on sale of
    prepaid sim cards constitutes commission and TDS
    is to be deducted as per provisions of Sn. 194H.

58
  • GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd.
    Vs. CIT 301 ITR 69 (Del.- Trib)
  • Capital or Revenue Expr.
  • Expenditure incurred to issue equity shares for
    augmentation of working capital. Expenditure is
    to be considered Capital in nature. Whether the
    capital raised is for Working capital or
    otherwise is irrelevant consideration.

59
THAN Q
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com