Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT) vs. ADIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
S. 2(15)/ 11: Important principles of what is a "charitable purpose" and the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act explained
As regards the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, it is clearly discernible from the CBDT's Circular No.11 of 2008, dated 19.12.2008 and speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister that the intention of Parliament in introducing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is to deny exemption to those organizations or entities, which are purely commercial or business in nature or the commercial business entities, which wear the mask of a charity. The genuine charitable organizations are not affected in any way
U. P. Electronics Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Lucknow)
S. 14A & Rule 8D: (i) Investments in subsidiaries & joint ventures are for strategic purposes and not for earning dividend and so the expenditure cannot be disallowed, (ii) If the AO does not deal with the assessee's submissions and merely says "not acceptable" it means he has not recorded proper satisfaction
Investment in subsidiary companies and joint venture companies are long term investment and no decision is required in making the investment or disinvestment on regular basis because these investments are strategic in nature and no direct or indirect expenditure is incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments or for holding the same. The department has not disputed that the purpose of investment is not for earning the dividend income but having control and business purpose and consideration
ACIT vs. Upper India Paper Mills Co Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Lucknow)
S. 2(47)(v): Even if possession is handed over to the developer, there is no "transfer" if the developer has only paid an interest-free advance to the assessee to meet expenses
The provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act can only be invoked where absolute possession of capital asset was given to the buyer against certain consideration, but in the instant case no consideration was ever fixed for handing over the possession to the developer and whatever amount was received it was received as interest free advance to meet the expenses to be incurred in discharging certain responsibilities agreed upon in this agreement. Therefore, from any angle there is no transfer of asset as per provisions of section 2(47) of the Act and capital gain would only be chargeable in the years in which stock-in-trade would be sold
CBDT Instruction Streamlines Litigation In High Courts
In view of the repeated strictures passed by judicial bodies on the gross inefficiencies of the income-tax department relating to litigation, the CBDT has issued Instruction No. 06 dated 03.07.2015 setting out clear-cut responsibilities of the CIT (Judicial)
CBDT's Circular Of Clarifications On Black Money Act, 2015
The CBDT has issued Circular No. 13 of 2015 dated 6th July 2015 in which it has noted that a number of queries have been received from the public about the scope of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Rules, 2015. The Board has considered the said queries and clarified the points raised by issue of the circular in the form of questions and answers
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (FTS)
S. 44BB vs. 9(1)(vii)/44D: The "pith and substance" test has to be applied to determine the dominant purpose of each agreement. If the dominant purpose is mining, the income is assessable only u/s 44BB and not as "fees for technical services" u/s 9(1)(vii) & 44D
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment