[aaykarbhavan] Supreme Court Reverses Law On S. 234A To 234C Interest + Tax On Deposits + 80HH/80-I Books

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

Tax on Deposits + S. 80HH/ 80-I separate unit accounts + s. 234A to 234C interest

September 13th, 2012

 

Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

"Contingent deposits" received from customers is "income"

It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction. "Contingent deposits" received from leasing/hire purchase customers with a view to protect from potential sales tax liability, which is credited to turnover, is assessable to income-tax (Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory (1988) 3 SCC 533 distinguished).

CIT vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd (Supreme Court)

S. 80HH & 80-I do not require maintenance of seperate books

S. 80HH & 80-I do not require maintenance of accounts unit wise and deduction can be claimed on the basis of consolidated accounts. To avoid litigation, the assessee should get the working of unit wise net profits certified by the Chartered Accountant.

Note: This impliedly approves Indian Aluminum 88 ITR 257 (Cal) & Mahindra Sintered 177 ITR 111 (Bom). Contrast with Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd (SC)

Karanvir Singh Gossal vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 234A to 234C is mandatory & can be levied even if assessment order is silent

As held in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC), interest u/s 234A to 234C is mandatory and interest under Section 234B/234C is mandatory in nature and there is no need for the AO to specifically recite in the assessment order that the said interest shall be levied. The Tribunal should consider whether the assessee is eligible for waiver of interest as per Notification No.F.No.400/234/95-IT(B), dated May 23, 1996

Note: This impliedly reverses CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (All) & Dehradun Club(Utt) where it was held that despite Anjum Ghaswala, a specific direction in the assmt order is necessary. Also, the Tribunal was asked to consider waiver even though under the Notification, the CCIT/DGIT has the power to waive & not the Tribunal.

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Management Committee Paradeep Port vs. ITO (Orissa High Court)

High Court Seethes With Fury At Dept For "Dirty Games" With Assessees

__._,_.___

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___