Uniform allowance paid to employees isn’t exempt if no dress code has been specified for employees

Facets Polishing Works (P.) Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 373 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)JUNE  25, 2015 
No exemption under section 10(14) shall be granted in respect of uniform allowance paid to employees if there is no dress code and the employees are free to wear any dress. ITAT has directed assessee-employer to include such allowance in salary of the employees for the purpose of deduction of tax under section 192

Where assessee had violated provisions of section 80-IB(10)(C) in respect of two units of housing project, denial of deduction under section 80-IB would be limited only to said two units and for balance units assessee would be entitled to deduction

Paras Builders[2015] 58 taxmann.com 286 (Pune - Trib.)MARCH  31, 2015 
Assessing Officer disallowed deduction on ground that assessee had violated provisions of section 80-IB(10)(c) by amalgamating two row houses, covered area of which was more than 1500 sq. ft. which is condition stipulated in section 80-IB(10)(c) - Whether merely because assessee had violated provisions of section 80-IB(10)(c) in respect of two units, deduction under section 80-IB(10) could not be denied in entirety and assessee was entitled to said deduction in respect of balance units which had been constructed as per conditions laid down in section 80-IB(10)(c) - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]

No deduction of employee's contribution to PF if paid before due date of filing return but after due date of PF

South India Corporation Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 208 (Kerala)MARCH  27, 2015 
Hitech (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1997] 227 ITR 446/94 Taxman 454 (AP) (para 4) followed
 two provisions were considered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hitech (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1997] 227 ITR 446/94 Taxman 454 in which it was held that a combined reading of clause (va) of Section 36(1) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act makes it clear that if the assessee (employer) credited any sum received by him from any of his employees on or before the due date, that is, the date by which the assessee (employer) is required to credit the employees' contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund (including the Provident Fund), he will be entitled to deduct the said amount in computing his business income. But, Section 43B controls the allowability of deduction of payment specified in clauses (a) to (d) thereof and provides certain conditions subject to which alone the deductions may be permissible. Enunciating the point, it was held that deduction would be available only if the remittance to the fund is made within the due date fixed for making such remittance into the fund; in the case in hand, the Provident Fund. So much so, the question referred is to be answered in favour of the Revenue

Cash deposit couldn't be held as unexplained if such amount was surrendered during search and reflected in WT return

Joginder Paul [2015] 58 taxmann.com 289 (Chandigarh - Trib.) JANUARY  12, 2015 

Cost of additions or improvements on habitable house is also eligible for sec. 54F relief

Mrs. Rahana Siraj [2015] 58 taxmann.com 333 (Karnataka) JANUARY  5, 2015 
Property purchased by the assessee was habitable but had lacked certain amenities. The assessee has spent nearly about Rs. 18 lakhs towards removal of mosaic flooring and laying of marble flooring, alteration of the kitchen, putting up compound wall, protecting the property with grill work and attending to other repairs. Section 54F of the Act provides that if the cost of the new asset, which is to be taken into consideration while determining the capital gain, the words used is "cost of new asset" and not "the consideration for acquisition of the new asset". 
                                             In law, it is permissible for an assessee to acquire a vacant site and put up a construction thereon and the cost of the new asset would be cost of land plus (+) cost of construction On the same analogy, even though he purchased a new asset, which is habitable but which requires additions, alterations, modifications and improvements and if money is spent on those aspects, it becomes the cost of the new asset and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit of deduction in determining the capital gains. 
                              The approach of the authorities that once a habitable asset is acquired, any additions or improvements made on that habitable asset is not eligible for deduction, is contrary to the statutory provisions. The said reasoning is unsustainable. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Lower authorities require to be set-aside and it is to be held that in arriving at cost of the new asset, Rs. 18 lakhs spent by the assessee for modification, alterations and improvements of the asset acquired is to be taken note of. Thus, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee

Arranger fee received by assessee-bank for mobilising deposits from SBI which was remitted to overseas branch/head office was not in nature of fee for technical services but merely commission and was not tax deductible at source

Mashreq Bank psc [2015] 58 taxmann.com 291 (Mumbai - Trib.) MAY  8, 2015 

After Delhi HC Gujarat HC also held that ITAT can extend stay beyond 365 days if delay isn’t due to assessee

Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 374 (Gujarat) JUNE  12, 2015 

where obligation to deduct tax at source from payment of transportation charges was complied with by agent on different dates for and on behalf of assessee, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) on account of reimbursement of such expenses to agent

OM India Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 325 (Guwahati - Trib.) 21-01-2015