Skip to main content

Some recent judgments in Taxation & Company Matters

1.     Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Deepak Agarwal

        Where assessee P.A. Jose vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kottayamssee was not engaged in business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company to extend financial support, could not be said to be utilization for business purposes, and proportionate interest was liable to be disallowed.

         Held: Interest on funds invested in related companies to be disallowed if it doesn't serve any business purpose -IT


2.      Commissioner of Income-tax-IV vs. Sambhav Media Ltd.

       Computation for loss suffered by a party to contract is to be allowed, if not claimed twice

       Held: Writing off a debt is enough to claim deduction; assessee not required to prove if debt has actually gone bad -IT
3.    P.A. Jose vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kottayam
      Expenditure incurred for interior decoration on leased premises, for purpose of setting up a new business is capital in nature

        Held: Sum incurred on interior decoration in a leasehold premises for a newly set-up business is a capital exp. -IT


4.     Symantec Software Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

      Typographical mistakes in order of Tribunal are liable to be rectified on an application made by assessee

     Held: Clerical mistakes in order of Tribunal rectifiable under section 254 -IT/ILT


5.   Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd.

    Where derivatives were held as stock-in-trade, rules applicable to valuation of stock-in-trade were to be applied and assessee's claim for mark-to-market loss was to be allowed

       Held: Mark-to-market loss allowed as derivatives were held by assessee as stock-in-trade -IT


6.   Meenadevi N. Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -5, Surat

    Where transaction of shares of a listed company was done through Demat account as per recognized Stock Exchange quoted price, same cannot be held as non-genuine

    Held: Dealing in shares through Dmat account is a sacred route, additions under sec. 68 deleted -IT


7.  Ramshree Steels (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Kanpur 

      Losses in speculation business cannot be set off against other business profits but business losses can be set off against profits in speculation 

     Held: Normal business losses can be set-off against profits of speculative as well as non-speculative business -IT

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more