Skip to main content

Some important judgment on tax laws

1. Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad vs. Smt. Rama Rani Kalia [2013] 38 taxmann.com 176 (Allahabad)
Converting a leasehold property into freehold improves title of asset; holding period reckoned from date of lease -IT: Conversion of rights of lessee in property from leasehold right into freehold only results in improvement of his/her rights over property and it would not have any effect on taxability of gain from such property, which is related to period over which property is held.

2. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala vs. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 126 (Punjab & Haryana)
Land adjoining factory utilized for industrial purposes wouldn't be liable to wealth tax -IT : Land adjoining factory utilized for industrial purposes would not be liable to wealth tax

3. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. H.B. Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 121 (Delhi)
Higher depreciation to be allowed on vehicle given on lease -IT: Where assessee engaged in business of leasing and financing leased vehicles to third parties, assessee would be entitled to depreciation at higher rate of 40 per cent

4. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., Lucknow [2013] 38 taxmann.com 105 (Allahabad)
HC could hear all questions of law even if assessee preferred separate appeals on similar issues for different years -IT: Where separate appeals were filed against common judgment of Tribunal pertaining to assessment of two different years having similar question of law in respect of same assessee, it would be appropriate to hear appeals on all substantial question of law as framed thereunder

5. Dabur India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5(1), Mumbai [2013] 37 taxmann.com 289 (Mumbai - Trib.)
Tenancy rights are not intangible assets; no depreciation allowable thereon -IT: Tenancy rights cannot be construed as 'intangible' assets falling within meaning of Explanation 3 to section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights

6. Hussan Lal Puri vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -6(1), Mohali [2013] 38 taxmann.com 7 (Chandigarh - Trib.)
Capital gain tax to be paid in the year itself in which joint development agreement is signed -IT: Where assessee, owner of plot, entered into a development agreement with developer in terms of which he was entitled to receive certain amount in cash and a furnished flat, assessee was liable to pay capital gain tax in year in which said joint development agreement was signed and not afterwards

7. Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-4(1) vs. Legg Mason Asia (Ex Japan) Analyst Fund [2013] 38 taxmann.com 12 (Mumbai - Trib.)
Short-term capital loss to be set off against short-term capital gains irrespective of nature of transaction -IT: Loss arising on short term capital assets is to be set off against income arising from such assets for same year, irrespective of whether transactions are categorized as 'off market transaction' or 'on market transactions

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