Dear Subscriber,
The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Rajmoti Industries vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
S. 40A(3): There is a difference between "crossed cheque" and "account payee cheque". Payment by crossed cheque attracts s. 40A(3) disallowance
The expression earlier used in s. 40A(3)(a) was a "crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft". This was amended by the legislature to be replaced by the expression "an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft". This was done in the background of the experience that even crossed cheques were being endorsed in favour of a person other than the drawee making it difficult to trace the constituent of the money. To plug this possible loophole the requirement of section 40A(3) was made more stringent. If we accept the contention of counsel for the assessee that there was no distinction between a crossed cheque and an account payee cheque, we would be obliterating this amendment brought in the statute with specific purpose in mind. Accordingly, payment by a crossed cheque is subject to disallowance u/s 40A(3) (Anupam Tele Services vs. ITO distinguished)
CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (Gujarat High Court)
Concept of "manufacture" explained. Non-claiming of s. 80-IB deduction in return is no bar for claiming it before CIT(A)
Though the assessee did not raise a claim in the return for deduction u/s 80IB & 80HHC, it was entitled to raise the claim before the CIT(A) for the first time. If a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be shut out for all times to come, merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the AO. Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. The decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC)is confined to the powers of the AO and accepting a claim without revised return and does not affect the power of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal to entertain a new ground or a legal contention
Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Retention money received, after TDS, but subject to bank guarantee, is not chargeable to tax as income till all conditions are satisfied
Mere receipt of income is not the sole test of chargeability. Receipt of income refers to the first occasion when the recipient gets the money under his own control. The words "accrue" or "arises" do not mean actual receipt of profits or gains. Both these words are used in contradistinction to the word "receive" and include a right to receive. Thus, if an assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to accrue to him though it may be received later on
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Important CBDT Circular On Depreciation/ Amortisation Of Intangible Assets
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment