Consolidated (Jan to Dec 2013) Digest Of Imp Case Laws
The consolidated digest of important case laws for the period from January to December 2013 is available for download.CIT vs. Vishal Developers (Gujarat High Court)
S. 80-!B(10): Law laid down in Radhe Developers 341 ITR 483 (Guj) on "works contract" is not affected by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited (2014) 1 SCC 708 and K. Raheja Development Corporation (2005) 141 STC 298
The department argued that the judgement in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Radhe Developers, (2012) 341 ITR 483 (Guj.) which draws a distinction between a "development contract" and a "works contract" and which holds that the benefit of s. 80-IB(10) is allowable to an assessee even if he is not the owner of the land is […]
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 14A Rule 8D: No presumption can be drawn that investment in tax-free securities has come from own funds. The amount of disallowance has to be added to the book profits u/s 115JB
(i) As regards the claim qua disallowance of interest expenditure, the argument of sufficient capital, so that the same must be presumed as having been applied toward investments yielding tax exempt income, misses the point completely. The matter has to be decided on the basis of facts and not presumptions. Until and unless therefore it […]
SRF Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 253(3): Delay of 1163 days in filing the appeal due to languid and inane conduct of the assessee cannot be condoned as it would result in the limitation period becoming otiose
(i) We are of the view that there is an extraordinary delay of 1163 days in filing this appeal for which assessee has to show "sufficient cause" but the cause shown by the assessee may be considered a "sufficient cause" for the intervening period when old officers left or parted with the company and till […]
Regards,
Editor,
--------------------
Latest:
Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
CUP method can be applied by a comparing a pricing formulae, rather than the pricing quantification in amount. Rule 10AB inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 is beneficial in nature and so retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment