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

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.

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.

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...