Skip to main content

Recent Income Tax Judgments

1.     Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mumbai vs. Yatish Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.
      
         Fact that assessee was trading in shares would not estop assessee from dealing in shares as investment and to offer such gain for tax under head 'capital gains'.      

       Held: Gain from sale of shares held as investment to be taxed as capital gains and not as business income -IT


2.     Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur vs. Banswara Synthetic Ltd.

       Lease rentals paid are allowable as business expenditure and not as interest by treating cost of leased assets as loan amount

        Held: Sum paid as rent is a business exp.; can’t be treated as interest by taking cost of leased assets as loan -IT


3. Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle
         Sec. 54F exemption allowed on mere investment even if transactions not completed within stipulated time -IT : Assessee would be entitled to benefit under section 54F if he had invested amount of capital gain in purchasing or constructing residential house, even though transaction is not complete within period stipulated

4. Edwise Consultants (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
         High incentives to directors merely on pretext of higher earning in particular year isn’t justified -IT: Payment of high incentives to directors was not justifiable, merely because assessee company had earned high profits in current year

5. Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam vs. Income-tax Officer [2013] 35 taxmann.com
         Relinquishment of rights in property in family settlements in lieu of cash is 'transfer'; chargeable to cap gains -IT: Relinquishment of right over property in case of a family settlement falls under definition of 'transfer' and exigible to capital gains


6. Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Panna Lalbhai Foundation
         Trust registration couldn’t be denied because of non-commencement of charitable activities -IT : Only because trust has not commenced activities, Commissioner would have no authority to ipso facto reject application for registration under section 12AA


7. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bhushan Capital & Credits Services (P.) Ltd.
          Share trading loss was genuine if unquoted shares were valued on net worth basis both at the time of purchase and sale -IT : Where shares were not quoted shares and valuation of shares both at time of purchase as well as at time of sale was made on networth basis which had not been challenged, transaction was to be held valid


8. Mahesh Investments vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1(1)
         Income from letting out of a commercial complex is ‘Income from house property’ and not a business income -IT : Income earned by assessee-firm from letting out a commercial complex was to be assessed as income from house property and not as business income

Comments

Most viewed this month

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Attached assets to be returned after revival of company

In A. Talukdar & Company (Fertilizer) Private Limited Vs. Respondent: The Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that If an order to wind up a company is recalled and the company is revived, it is entitled to get back from the official liquidator its entire assets. Tenants who occupied the premises during the proceedings shall go out. The company court can evict them.