Transactions in commodity exchange to be treated non speculative w.e.f. 01-04-2006

Held by ITAT Mumbai in ITA 2742/2011 in case of Arnav Akshay Mehta on 12-09-2012
ITAT held that s.43(5)(d) to apply retrospectively w.e.f. even if MCX recognized  on 22-5-2009
The issue that 43(5)(d) applies to securities and not commodities not dealt in the case

Cash Receipt of Share Application Money is not contravention of 269SS

 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

ITA No.2858/Del/2012 – Assessment year: 2008-09

Deputy CIT V/s.  M/s Alpex Exports (P) Ltd.

Date of pronouncement 28-08-2012

Addition can not be made only on the basis of low GP ratio

1. ITA 4126/Del/2010 (ITAT Delhi) Sh. Prem Chand vs ITO
2. ITA 1406/2012/Del (ITAT) ITO vs Sai Internaitonal
3. 296 ITR 45 (Gau) Madnani Cosntruction Corporation
4.  38 ITR 579 S.N. Namasivyam Chhettiar
5. 26 ITR 159   Pandit Bros.
6. S. Veeriah Reddiar 38 ITR 152 Ker
7. International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K)                                                                                                       
8. Aluminium Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 184 (Gauhati)
9. CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi).                                                                               The accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. The onus is upon the Revenue to show that either the books of account maintained by the assessee were incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting adopted by him was such that true profits of the assessee cannot be deduced therefrom

Service Tax on Retreading old tyres

CBEC in the month of Feburary,2012, in their circular CBEC F.No.137/125/2011-ST. have addressed the issue and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s P.C. Cheriyan v. Mst. Barfi Devi. The context is as below:

“ In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that-

“The retreading of old tyres does not bring into being a commercially distinct or different entity. The old tyre retains its original character, or identity as a tyre. Retreading does not completely transform it into another commercial article, although it improves its performance and serviceability as a tyre. Retreading of old tyres is just like resoling of old shoes.”

Though this judgment is given in the context of Transfer of Property Act, however, the basic principle behind “manufacture” of coming into existence of a commercially different and distinct entity is equally applicable to Central Excise Act and has been relied upon by the Tribunal in certain cases while interpreting ‘manufacture’ under section 2(F) of the Central Excise Act. “

 This is a works contract and service tax shall be charged @ 70% of amount charged w.e.f. 1-7-2012

After filing appeal before CIT A,assesee has no right to withdraw it

High Court of Madras in case of M. Loganathan ITA 361/2006 dated 18-07-2012
Followed CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 wherein the Apex Court held that when an assessee takes the assessment on appeal, he cannot withdraw the same. Thus, when the machinery of the Act has been activated, the assessee cannot prevent the appellate authority from settling the real income to be assessee. 

Rajiv Gandhi Equity Saving Scheme 80CCG

Newly inserted Section 80CCG provides deduction wef assessment year 2013-14 in respect ofinvestment made under notified equity saving scheme. The deduction under this section is available if following conditions are satisfied:

NSC shall double in 10 years w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 319(E), DATED 25-4-2012

Rate of interest on nsc subscribed on or after 01-04-2012 changed 

Rate of Interest on Senior Citizen Scheme shall be 9.3% w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 321(E), DATED 25-4-2012

Post Office MIS Interest w.e.f. 01-04-2012 shall be 8.5%

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 322(E), DATED 25-4-2012

8.8% Interest on PPF w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 904(E), DATED 25-4-2012

No TDS on software purchase from Resident where tax deducted in previous transfer

NOTIFICATION NO. 21/2012 [F.No.142/10/2012-SO(TPL)] S.O. 1323(E), DATED 13-6-2012

CA Certificate F.26A/27BA notified for regularizing TDS/TCS defaults

NOTIFICATION NO. 37/2012 [F.NO. 142/18/2012-SO(TPL)], DATED 12-9-2012 by CBDT

Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year 2012-13 notified at 852

Depreciation on Let Out unused Machinery allowed by P&H HC

ITA 124 of 2004 dated 6-8-2012 CIT Vs. Ranbir Chemicals (P&H HC)

appellant-revenue submitted that the assessee had let out the machinery without there being any commercial expediency and the amount of lease was not increased in spite of providing additional machinery worth ` 45,64,613/-.Held by CIT A and ITAT that once purchase of machinery and letting out was not in doubt depreciation has to be allowed. Order confirmed by High Court

Tax Audit held not required for Entities having exempt Income by Punjab & Haryana High Court

ITA 494 of 2005 dated 17-07-2012
Chapter IV of the Act provides for 'computation of total income'. Section 44AB of the Act is one of the sections enacted under Chapter IV-D dealing with computation of profits and gains of business or profession. Section 44AB of the Act becomes operative where there is computation of profits and gains of business or profession as a part of total income. In other words, it has no applicability where the assessee
is not involved in or has no income from profits and gains from business or profession. In the present case, it was not disputed that the income of the assessee was exempted under Section 10 (20) of the Act which
falls in Chapter III of the Act. There was no income of the assessee which would fall under heading “profits and gains of business or profession”. Once that was so, it could not be said that the provisions of
Section 44AB were applicable and as a sequel thereto, penalty under Section 271B of the Act was not leviable. The Tribunal had rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

Deductor absolved from duty to quote correct PAN by P&H HC

In Instant case assesee quoted 196 wrong PANs and penalty was Rs. 1960000 was imposed by department. Assessee later revised TDS return. CIT(A) and ITAT observed that liability to quote correct PAN is that of deductee. Penalty was absolved and order of ITAT was confirmed by High Court

Decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad “D” Bench in the case of Financial Cooperative Bank Limited v. ITO,

followed in instant case.
ITA 124/7-8-12 in case of CIT vs. SP Office, Yamunanagar decided by P&H HC