KALINDI AGRO BIOTECH LTD 29 CCH 0422 DelTrib
Friday 24 July 2015
Assessee company engaged in production and marketing of potato seeds—Multiplication of potatoes is carried out in tissue culture laboratory which are transplanted in green houses to produce "O" generation seed and sold to farmers—Expenditure of Rs. 23,86,522 claimed as buy-back production cost—AO came to the conclusion that the assessee had given work contract to the farmers for growing potatoes of desired specifications from seeds supplied by it—Since the tax was not deducted at source, the amount was to be disallowed under s. 40(a)(ia)—Operations carried out by the farmers are purely agricultural operations and cannot be said that they were in the nature of works contract—Similarly payments made to labourers were also not under works contract—Disallowances rightly deleted Held:
No TDS u/s 194C for loading and unloading charges to daily unskilled workers
M/s.
Man Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Supervision Charges for Mixing shall be covered by 194C and not as technical service under 194J
M/s.
Man Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Separate bills for windmill converters and other equipments being issued . Hence no TDS required to be deducted on such value while deducting TDS on value of civil work required for installation of equipment .
M/s
Abhilash Garments & Estates Pvt.Ltd, Date of pronouncement : 17-07-2015 ITA
Nos.1255 to 1257(B)/2014
Principles of Reopening assesment where asessment u/s 143(3) has been made
M/s.
Marks Shipping Pvt. Ltd
The AO has the power to reopen the
assessment,but such reassessment cannot be initiated on a mere change of
opinion to merely re-examine an issue on the basis of information or material
which was already available to the AO at the time of the completion of the
original assessment.“Reason to believe” could never be an outcome of
a change of opinion. Consequently, before taking any action,he is required to
substantiate his satisfaction in the reasons recorded by him. If such reasons
recorded disclose a mere change of opinion the assessment proceedings cannot be
initiated. Once the AO has made an assessment on the
primary facts and documents placed before him, he cannot at another point of
time form another opinion on the same primary facts and arrive at a conclusion
that he had committed an error or come to a conclusion that he has now reason
to believe that income had escaped assessment and reopen the assessment
proceedings. ix.Further, on the basis of an audit report, notice under section
148 cannot be issued as such audit report cannot be regarded as “information”
within the meaning of 147
The Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) has not recorded any satisfaction and has merely affixed his signature on the file without even putting a date or any other word in addition to such signature. Order of Tribunal that this is not proper sanction for S. 151rws S. 147 upheld by High Court
AMAR
KHOSLA Order dated 20-07-2015 Delhi High Court.
Appeal Effect order pased by AO can not be over ruled by another order terming the first order a only administrative order . Section 292B for technical breach can not confer jurisdiction for passing another order
CITI
FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA PVT.
LTD dtd 17-07-2015 ITA 275/2015
Dissolution of Private Trust: Section 45(4) is not applicable because trust is not AOP
L.R. Patel Family Trust vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 19 March, 2003 262 ITR 520 Bom
Joint Commissioner who was promoted as a Commissioner and has granted the sanction, was directed by the Boardu/s 120(2) to so discharge duties of Joint Commissioner. Issue of Notice in such circumstances by CIT instead of JCIT not invalid
Sant Trust (since dissolved) WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
Held that in Ghanshyam K.
Khabrani vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors.
(2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) these facts were not
present, hence sanction by higher authority was held invalid
Held by Bombay High Court that where sanction of particular officer is required for reassessment ,sanction by higher officer shall not meet the requirements of section 151
Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. Assistant Commissioner (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom)
ITAT noticed the decision of its co-ordinate Bench in Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. Addl, Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 25 Taxmann.com 381 (Mum) and observed that in the present case, the AO had not recorded any finding that any expenditure incurred by the Assessee was attributable for earning the exempt income. In order to disallow the expenditure there must be a nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income not forming part of the total income.
[Om Parkesh Khaitan ITAT Delhi 21-07-2015 ITA 416/2015]
Given the manner and functioning of the lawyers and law firms, it is correct that the categorization of a receipt can take place only at the time of appropriation i.e. in case of fees only when the matter is over or as when the Assessee decides on the quantum of fees. This will not be the entire advance received as at the time it is received it does not bear any particular characterization for the purposes of treating it as income. Hence mere receipt of advance can not be treated as income in the year of receipt of amount although cash system of accounting is being followed by the advocate.
[Om Parkesh Khaitan ITAT Delhi 21-07-2015 ITA 416/2015]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)