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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.