Pages

Saturday, 6 October 2012

Underwriting commission and interest on bonds earned by a co-op bank is entitled for deduction under section 80P


[2012] 25 taxmann.com 237 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar
v.
Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.*
S.H. KAPADIA, CJ.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5975 & 5976 OF 2004
AUGUST 30, 2012
Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction - Income of co-operative society - Whether a Co-operative bank is entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of income earned from underwriting commission and interest on PSEB Bonds and IDBI Bonds - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
CASE REVIEW

CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Co-op Bank Ltd. [2007] 160 Taxman 48 (SC) (para 2) followed.
ORDER

Heard learned counsel on both sides.
The civil appeals are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
ORDER

Heard learned counsel on both sides. In these appeals, following questions of law arise for determination:
"[a]  Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Respondent-Assessee was entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of income from underwriting commission and interest on PSEB Bonds and IDBI Bonds?
[b]  Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the decision of the Tribunal that the income earned by the Assessee which was derived from underwriting the issue of bonds and investments in PSEB Bonds was in the nature of income from banking business and hence qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No.2499 of 2005/[2007] 160 Taxman 48 (SC) @ S.L.P. (C) No.3826 of 2004], these civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
No order as to costs.

CIT can not reject stay of demand without reasons

Order rejecting stay on demand should be reasoned one - Application for stay of demand of tax cannot be rejected without considering assessee's submissions and without giving reasons for rejection
Balaji Universal Tradelink (P.) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 256 (Bombay)

No TDS on Reimbursement of Charges

Reimbursement of validation charges in respect of testing of medicine manufactured under contract 
[2012] 26 taxmann.com 7 (Bangalore - Trib.) Allergan India (P.) Ltd.

Ignorance of law by Non Resident is valid excuse for penalty

Where foreign company having deputed assessee-non-resident in India, paid salary to him after deducting taxes payable, failure of assessee to show said income in his return was to be regarded as bona fide mistake for which penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) could not be levied
Emilio Ruiz Berdejo [2012] 26 taxmann.com 24 (Pune - Trib.)

Where land sold by assessee to builder had been acquired by Government and assessee had received no compensation, no capital gains arose to assessee even though he received consideration from builder

Tej Singh [2012] 25 taxmann.com 573 (Agra - Trib.)
Anil Kumar Forma (HUF) v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 245/163 Taxman 182 (Mad.) and CIT v. Karambir Singh [2008] 303 ITR 231/169 Taxman 85 (Punj. & Har.) (para 6.3) followed.

No addition for investment in property can be made where rental income is disproportionately high

[2012] 25 taxmann.com 550 (Delhi) Dinesh Jain HUF
Valuation provisions of wealth tax also can not be used

No denial of section 54F exemption on registration of residential property in name of minor daughter - Exemption under section 54F will be admissible even where assessee has registered residential house property in name of his minor daughter

N. Ram Kumar [2012] 25 taxmann.com 337 (Hyderabad - Trib.)
Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228/[1986] 28 Taxman 572, CIT v. Ravindra Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) and Third ITO v. S. Vardarajan [1989] 33 TTJ 466 (Mad.) (para 7) followed.

Jainarayan v. ITO [2008] 306 ITR 335 (Punj. & Har.); Parkash v. ITO [2009] 312 ITR 40/[2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Mum.) and ITO v.Prakash Timeji Dhanjede [2002] 258 ITR (AT) 114 (Nag.) (para 7) distinguished.