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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more