Finance Bill 2015: Critique Of Proposed Amendment To Charities Law In S. 2(15)
The author argues with conviction that the proposed amendment to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act will have the unintended consequence of benefiting large non-profit organisations while adversely affecting smaller non-profit organisations
Deepi Arora vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Though u/s 80-IA(5), the profits of the eligible unit has to be computed on the 'stand alone' principle, in a case where the assessee also has non-business income, the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) has to be set off against the eligible profits before computing s. 80-IA deduction
The assessee's manner of computing Gross Total Income, though mathematically leading to the same result, i.e., in terms of net taxable income, is incorrect and not in conformity with either the terms of the provisions or the scheme of the Act. There is, in fact, no scope for any vacillation; the same being basic to the scheme of the Act, with the apex court in Synco Industries Ltd 299 ITR 444 (SC) explaining the manner in which the GTI is to be computed, so that independent of the provision of s. 80-I(6) (or s. 80-IA(5)), all other applicable provisions, including ss. 32(2) & s. 72, would apply in computing such income
IDBI Capital Market Services Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(i) Mark-to-market loss on interest rate swap contracts is not a notional loss, (ii) Benefit against s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance conferred in Kotak Securities 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has to be extended to cases where ROI was filed pre-delivery of the verdict
The Hon'ble High Court further observed that in these circumstances if both the parties for nearly a decade proceeded on the footing that section 194J is not attracted, then in the assessment year in question, no fault can be found with the assessee in not deducting tax at source under section 194J of the Act and consequently, no action could be taken under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As the Return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 14/08/2009 and this decision of the Hon'ble was pronounced on 21/10/2011. Thus, the assessee had already filed the return of income and the time period for deducting tax at source was also lapsed. Considering these peculiar facts, in our considered opinion no disallowance on this account should be made for the year under consideration
Chemfert Traders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271D/ 271E: If assessee's plea about compulsion to pay/ receive loans in cash is not disputed, the violation of s. 269SS/269T is deemed to be bonafide and does not attract penalty
It is also not mentioned in the penalty order that the aforementioned amount taken by the assessee in violation of section 269SS and repayment thereof in violation of section 269T was not bonafide transaction and the same was made with a view to evade tax
Bharat Dana Bera vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 41(1)/68: Failure to establish genuineness of old liabilities means that there is a remission/ cessation of such liabilities
The assessee failed to establish the genuineness of these liabilities by producing supporting evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in the books of account would not establish the genuineness of liabilities
Genre Exports Private Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Applying commonsense approach, unclaimed liabilities are assessable as income even if not credited to P&L A/c
If an amount is received in course of trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right
ACIT vs. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 29/37(1): Loss due to fraud & financial irregularities has to be allowed in the year of detection
Loss due to fraud and financial irregularities have to be allowed as a deduction in the year of detection. This is in line with the Board circular No.35D(XLVII- 20)(F.No.10/48/65-IT(A-I) dated 24.11.1965 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation Of India Limited. vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC)
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Change In Bombay High Court's Tax Bench Constitution w.e.f 16.03.2015
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment