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

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil