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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...