Income-tax Decisions

Vinod Kumar Jain vs. CIT (2010) 46 DTR 253
S. 2(14), 2(29A), 2(42A) : The assessee was allotted the flat on 27/02/1982 by issuance of an allotment letter and he had been making instalment payments in terms thereof. However, the specific number of flat was allotted to the assessee and possession was delivered on 15/05/1986. It was held that the right of the assessee prior to 15-5-1986 was a right in the property and it cannot be held that prior to the said date the assessee was not holding the flat. Thus the gain arising out of sale of flat, allotted to assessee vide allotment letter dated 27/02/1982 and sold on 6/01/1989 is a long term capital gain even though possession was granted on 15/05/1986.

CIT vs. Salitho Ores Limited (2010) 46 DTR (Bom) 377
S. 37(1) : The assessee is the best judge in the matter of commercial expediency. Assessee incurs expenditure in pursuit of a business opportunity. But sometimes judgement as to the existence of a business opportunity turns sour. Expenditure incurred for pursuit of the business or exploitation of business opportunity cannot be denied by tax authorities on the ground that the decision was imprudent. Accordingly it was held that lease rent of 4 dozers is allowed as deduction even if 3 out of 4 dozers were not used at all.

CIT vs. Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd (2010) 47 DTR (SC) 65
Sec. 40(A)(2): In the case of domestic transactions, the under-invoicing of sales and over-invoicing of expenses ordinarily will be revenue neutral in nature, except in two circumstances having tax arbitrage—
[i] If one of the related Companies is loss making and the other is profit making and profit is shifted to the loss making concern; and
[ii] If there are different rates for two related units [on account of different status, area based incentives, nature of activity, etc.] and if profit is diverted towards the unit on the lower side of tax arbitrage. For example, sale of goods or services from non-SEZ area [taxable division] to SEZ unit [non-taxable unit] at a price below the market price so that taxable division will have less profit taxable and non-taxable division will have a higher profit exemption.

All these complications arise in cases where fair market value is required to be assigned to the transactions between related parties in terms of Section 40A(2). In order to reduce litigation, we are of the view that certain provisions of the Act, like Section 40A(2) and Section 80IA(10), need to be amended empowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the income declared by the assessee having regard to the fair market value of the transactions between the related parties. The Assessing Officer may thereafter apply any of the generally accepted methods of determination of arm’s length price, including the methods provided under Transfer Pricing Regulations.

The Court further suggestions the law should be amended to make it compulsory for the taxpayer to maintain Books of Accounts and other documents on the lines prescribed under Rule 10D

CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Goel (2010) 235 CTR (Chattisgarh) 516
Sec. 40(A)(3) read with Rule 6DD(d)(iv): Payment made through bankers cheque/ pay order / CDR, are bills of exchange and payments made through these instruments cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(d)(iv).

CIT vs. Maruti Employees Co-Op Hous. Soc. Limited (2010) 235 CTR (P&H) 407
57(iii) : Interest was derived on deposits made by the members as to so requiring the assessee to discharge the liability of maintaining their house. As a matter of executing the obligations of the deposits made, the assesse was incurring expenses. Accordingly expenses incurred towards maintenance of houses by the assessee were allowed as a deduction against such income.

CIT vs. Smt Alka Bhonsale (2010) 46 DTR (Bom) 253
Sec. 94 : Mutual fund unit striping - the conditions prescribed in clause (a),(b) and (c) of sub-section (7) of Section 94 are intended to be cumulative in nature.

Sakthi Textile Limited vs. JCIT (2010) 46 DTR (Mad) 191
Sec. 147 , 148 AY: 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 : Having entertained an writ petition, if the same is dismissed after several years on the ground of availability of alternative remedy it would not be in the interest of justice.

CIT vs. Bhagwati Steels (2010) 47 DTR (P&H) 75
S. 194C: On the facts of case it was held that where whole of the distribution agreement was considered as transaction of goods per se, it cannot be segregated for the purpose of payment of expenses viz. freight charges and accordingly amount of freight charged separately in the invoice cannot be held liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C

Brij Lal vs. CIT [2010] 194 Taxman 566 (SC)
Settlement Commission: Provisions dealing with a regular assessment, self assessment and levy & computation of interest for default in payment of advance tax, etc are engrafted under chapter XIXA pertaining to settlement of cases. Interest u/s 234B is levied up to the date of order u/s 245D(1) and not upto the date of order u/s 245D(4). The Settlement Commission cannot reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking S. 154 so as to levy interest u/s 234B particularly in view of S. 245-I

Tribunal

Inter Gold (I)(P) Ltd vs. JCIT 2010 47 DTR (Mumbai) (Tribunal) 150
S. 4, 28(i): If the receipt is to make good actual or prospective loss in a particular trading transaction or set of transactions, it is a revenue receipt liable to tax. Any receipt towards loss of source income is capital receipt. Loss on source of income does not necessarily mean that it must absolutely extinguish. If the source of income has been severely beaten thereby causing serious damage to the income earning apparatus itself, it will also be construed as the loss of source of income. So if goodwill of the business is damaged and later on some compensation is awarded in lieu of that, it will also fall in the same category of loss of source of income. It is imperative that the receipt should be in fact towards the loss of goodwill in general and no part of it should relate to make good loss of a particular trading transaction or set of transactions.

Zylog Systems Limited vs. ITO - ITA No. 1138 & 1141/Mds/2007 Order dt 2-11-2010 (Chennai Sp. Bench)
S. 10A, AY 2003-04: The appellant receiving the export proceeds in foreign exchange abroad (as per the guidelines of RBI) within due dates and utilizing the same for the purpose of business is considered as deemed receipts in India. Accordingly such receipts cannot be excluded from the exports proceeds while computing deduction u/s 10B.

DCIT vs. Shree Laxmi Tractors 2010-TIOL-572-ITAT-BANG
S.40A(3): Assessee granting discount from actual sale price of tractor to a customer at the time of purchase is cannot be categorised as a expenditure. It is merely an deduction from sale price and there is no actual cash payment. Hence disount is not liable for disallowance u/s 40A(3)

DCIT vs. SMK Shares & Stock Broking P. Ltd ITA No. 799/Mum./2009 ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai Order dt. 24/11/2010
S.45 A.Y. 2005-06 : The assessee, a broker, disclosed gains on sale of shares as a short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains. During the assessment proceeding AO treated short term gain as business income on the ground that there was large volume and frequency of transaction. A prudent investor always keeps a watch on the market trends and, therefore, is not barred under law from liquidating his investments in shares. The law itself has recognised this fact by taxing these transactions under the head “Short Term Capital Gains”. If the Assessing Officer’s reasoning is accepted, then it would be against the legislative intent itself. It was held that if the modus operandi of the assessee remained the same in regard to other shares purchased during the year, then the assessee’s claim could not be negated only on the basis of frequency of the transaction.

Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA 1629/M/09 ‘G’ Bench, Mumbai Order Dt 17-09-2010
S. 14A AY 2005-06 : In view of decision of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Rule 8D is applicable only prospectively i.e. from A.Y. 2008-09. Where the investment in shares was made out of own funds & not out of borrowed funds, relying on decision of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 (P&H) it was held that disallowance of interest u/s 14A is not sustainable. Further disallowance out of common administrative expenses was restricted to 2% of the total exempt income.

Sulzer India Ltd vs. JCIT AIT-2010-503-ITAT- I.T.A. No.2944/MUM/2007 (Mum Sp. Bench)
S.41(1)(a): Difference between the discounted value paid towards the future sales tax liability cannot be termed as remission/ cessation of liability because the Sate Government has neither waived any of the liability nor tax payer has enjoyed any benefit S.41(1) (a)

DCIT vs. Mayavati (2010) 42 SOT 59 (Del)
Sec. 56(2)(v) : In absence of any quid pro quo and any duties or obligations on the part of the assessee to render any services political or otherwise, gifts could not be held to be received from exercise of vocation of politics. However gifts upto and above specified amount i.e. 25000 to be considered u/s 56(2)(v).

DCM Engineering Ltd vs. ACIT (201) 46 DTR (Del) (Trib) 505
Sec. 115JB : In order to determine book profits liable for MAT, profit as per the Profit and Loss A/c for the relevant previous year is to reduced by an amounts, lower of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation as per books of accounts and not by the business loss or depreciation as per tax audit report. Further no adjustment can be made on account of provision of gratuity and leave encashment arrived as per actuarial valuation

JSW Steel Limited vs. ACIT 2010 133 TTJ 742 (Bom)
Sec115JB : Debenture Redemption Reserve created even though is created towards ascertained liability is on capital account. Accordingly same cannot be deductible while computing Book Profits.

N.G. Roa vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ (Del.) 797
Sec. 271(1)(c) : By no stretch of imagination an making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The claim of HRA in respect of 2 accommodations by furnishing all particulars in the return is a case of a claim of exemption made by the assessee, which in the eyes of the department is a claim not sustainable in the law is not subject to levy of concealment penalty.

(Published in WIRC December 2010 News Letter; CA. Paras K. Savla, CA. Lalchand Chaudhary )