The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Amitkumar Ambalal Shah vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
S. 2(47): Transfer takes place in year of execution of sale deed, handing over of possession & receipt of sale consideration & is not deferred to year of registration. Verdict in Suraj Lamp and Industries 340 ITR 1 (SC) explained
The Tribunal had to consider whether capital gains are assessable in AY 2008-09, being the year when the sale deed was executed and possession handed over and most of the sale consideration was received or in AY 2009-10 when the sale deed was registered. Held by the Tribunal: The transaction relates to the date when […]
Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Though approval of Director of STPI to EOU is sufficient for s. 10A, it is not so for s. 10B. For s. 10B, the approval of the Board appointed under I(D&R) Act is necessary. Claim for s. 10A can be made before CIT(A)
(1) The fact that the assessee is a 100% EOU approved by the Director, STPI does not mean entitle the assessee to deduction u/s 10B if the undertaking is not been approved by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 14 of the Industries (Development […]
Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Rule 10B(1)(b): Resale Price Method applies even where the goods are bought from an AE and sold to another AE
The argument of the department that under Rule 10B(1)(b) the Resale Price Method can be applied only when the assessee buys from an associated enterprise and sells to a non-associated enterprise and not when the sale is to an AE is not correct. As per the Rule 10B(1)(b), under the Resale Price Method the price […]
Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
The only requirement of s. 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income. There is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. The delay in filing an appeal after payment of SA tax can be condoned
(i) The only requirement of section 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income and there is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. Therefore, if an appeal is filed after making of payment, it cannot be said that the requirement of section 249(4) has not been complied with. The CIT(A) can […]
ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said to be for the use of an asset
(i) It is thus clear that in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is […]
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
CBDT Order Transferring & Posting Chief Commissioners & Director Generals
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment