Posting + Transfer Orders Of Hon'ble ITAT Members (March 2015 – III)
Vide orders passed by the Hon'ble President pursuant to the consultations with the Collegium of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of the President and two senior most Vice Presidents, the following decisions have been taken
Prakash K. Kankariya vs. JCIT (Bombay High Court)
In applying the 'extrapolation' principle of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC), the AO is entitled to make an estimation based on guesswork. However, the estimate must not be arbitrary and should be based on material
The ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HM Eusafali HM Abdulala (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) has been explained in the later judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. M.K.E. Memon 248 ITR 310 (Bom.) It is open for the Assessing Officer to make an estimation and in that process there could be a certain guess work as well. That element cannot be discarded totally
Manugraph India Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(i) Growth mutual funds do not yield dividend and so s. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply, (ii) S. 14A/Rule 8D disallowance for admin exp cannot exceed allocable exp debited to P&L A/c, (iii) ALP of funds lent to AE should be as per LIBOR, (iv) ALP of corporate guarantee to be at 0.5%
Growth mutual fund does not yield any dividend/exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A would not apply on the investment in growth mutual funds
Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Transfer Pricing: Share application money cannot be treated as loan amount merely because there is a delay in issuance of shares
For transfer pricing purposes, share application money cannot be treated as loan amount merely because there is a delay in issuance of shares by the subsidiary in the name of the assesse, which was duly explained by the assesse
DCIT vs. Rajasthan Global Securities Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
Factors to be considered for classifying gains from sale of listed shares into "short-term capital gains" versus "business profits" explained
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee took delivery of such shares after making full payment and it was not a case of settling the transaction of purchase and sale of such shares during the settlement period itself. This is another reason to indicate that the intention of the assessee to hold them as Investment
Anil Kumar Chaudhary vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
S. 147/ 148: If the assessee does not ask for reasons and file objections before the AO, he is not entitled to challenge the reopening proceedings
Law does not provide or mandate that the Assessing Officer shall suo motu shall supply the copy of those 'reasons to believe' to the assessee. It is for assessee and if assessee chooses to ask for reasons then he/she can file objection thereto. Only when such objections are filed, it becomes the duty of the Assessing Officer to dispose of all those objections first by passing a speaking order and if the objections are rejected then it gives a cause to the assessee to challenge such order by filing an appropriate writ
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
Niko Resources Limited vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
S. 80-IB(9): The Explanation to Section 80-IB(9) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2000 is ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment