Friday 9 October 2015
ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs S.Suvarna Rekha in ITA No.743/Hyd/2009 dated 29.10.2010 took the view that if difference between valuation for the purpose of stamp duty and the sale consideration actually received by the assessee is 10% or less then the value actually received by the assessee should be adopted for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain. Keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench referred to above and keeping in view of the fact that the difference between the valuation for the stamp duty and the actual consideration received by the assessee is less than 2% , addition u/s 50C is not sustainable [Para 30,31]-M/s. LGW Limited ITA No.267/Kol/2013 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2015.
Loss on Forward Contracts for hedging foreign exchange fluctuations is not speculative. Followed CIT Vs. Soorajmull Nagarmull (1981) 5 Taxman 289 (Cal), CIT Vs, Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd., (2004) 134 Taxman 376 (Bom), CIT Vs. Friends and Friends Shipping Pvt.Ltd., Tax Appeal No.251 of 2010 dated 23.8.2011 and CIT Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Tax Appeal No.131 of 2013 dated 28.3.2013 by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court-M/s. LGW Limited ITA No.267/Kol/2013 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2015.
Application for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act could not be rejected only on the ground that it was not accompanied with an audit report. Report can be filed during approval process also.Support drawn from P&H High Court in Punjab Financial Corporation (2002) 254 ITR 6 and Circular No. 689 of 1994- All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Aipeccs Society [2015] 62 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)
Section 11(5) is not applicable to educational institutions u/s 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiad) i.e. institutions having gross receipts lesser than one crore or being substantially financed by government need not invest in specified modes u/s 11(5)[Para 63 2nd Line] )- All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Aipeccs Society [2015] 62 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)
Recall order of ITAT u/s 254(2) can not be challenged before High Court u/s 260A. It canot even be challenged along with main order u/s 254(1). The only remedy is writ petition under Article 226 (Para 32 to 36)- All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Aipeccs Society [2015] 62 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)
Where deposits are made in saving account of the assessee and assessee pleads that they represent sale proceeds of the business without producing sale and purchase bills of the business, the matter held to require investigation by AO -Bir Parkash Malhotra [2015] 61 taxmann.com 99 (Chandigarh - Trib.)
AO assumed that all the patients who had undergone lab test had been operated upon. Held that AO has not brought any material on record to show whether actually any patient had undergone surgery without recording the same in the records Of the assessee. The addition has been made by the AO merely on assumption of certain facts without any basis.Books of accounts can not be rejected. Dr. Maheshinder Singh [2015] 61 taxmann.com 353 (Chandigarh - Trib.) JANUARY 30, 2015
Fee for technical service in DTAA between India-China covers provision of service while Pak-China treatise talks about 'provision of rendering of services. Hence DTAA between India-China gives more comprehensive coverage to fee for technical service and service might get covered even if it is not rendered. Hence Chinese subsidiary of Indian company getting service cost plus 10% from Indian company for specialized services of market research and information on new developments in China with regard to technology/product/process upgrade etc., held taxable at gross amount including reimbursement of actual service cost following Timken India Limited (AAR No.617 of 2003). [2015] 62 taxmann.com 96 (AAR - New Delhi)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)