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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

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.