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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf