DIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
S. 44BB: Service tax & Customs duty collected by assessee from clients is not includible in gross receipt while computing income u/s 44BB
The Court concurs with the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 156 which held that the reimbursement received by the Assessee of the customs duty paid on equipment imported by it for rendering services would not form part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act. The Court accordingly holds that for the purposes of computing the 'presumptive income' of the assessee for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act, the service tax collected by the Assessee on the amount paid by it for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section 44 BB (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The Assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the government
Tristar Intech (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 271(1)(c): The deeming provision of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) applies only to a case of "concealment of income" and not to a case of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"
There are two different charges i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty can be imposed only for a specific charge. Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income means, when the assessee has not disclosed the particulars correctly or the particulars disclosed by the assessee are found to be incorrect whereas, concealment of particulars of income means, when the assessee has concealed the income and has not shown the income in its return or in its books of accounts. Explanation 1 is a deeming provision and is applicable when an amount is added or disallowed in computation of total income which is deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 1 cannot be applied in a case where the assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars of income
Venus Financial Services Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 48: In computing "capital gains" the AO is not entitled to substitute the "market value" for the actual "consideration" received by the assessee. He also cannot disregard the valuation report without cogent material
It is settled position of law that in the case of sale, the Assessing Officer has no power to replace the value of the consideration agreed between the parties. A report of a valuer is an important piece of evidence and the same cannot be discarded without there being any cogent material on record showing that the report of the valuer is not correct
The Recent Two Verdicts Of Apex Court: Guiding Star For High Courts & Advocates Fraternity
Shri. Akhilesh Kumar Sah, Advocate, has dealt with two landmark judgements of the Supreme Court on the rights, duties and privileges of advocates and explained the entire issue in the proper perspective in the context of the rules of the Bar Council of India and the Code of Ethics
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: (i) Presumption laid down in HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that investments in tax-free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and (ii) Law laid down in India Advantage (Bom) that s. 14A and Rule 8D does not apply to securities held as stock-in-trade cannot be applied as both propositions are contrary to Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom)
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment