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

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...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...