SMSL-UANRCL (JV) MARCH 2, 2015 60 Taxmann.com 206
Monday 24 August 2015
A contract was entered by assessee- joint venture company to execute project work for its client - Assessee did not execute contract work and said work was done by one of its constituents, namely 'SMS Ltd.' - Receipts for project work were reflected in books of account of 'SMS Ltd.' and in return, 'SMS Ltd.' had disclosed said income and assessment was completed - Whether since there was no finding of receipt of any income by assessee on account of said contract, same would not be treated as income in hands of assessee
assessee sold immovable property resulting in capital loss - On basis of valuation made by sub-registrar, Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee for adoption of higher sale value of property - In response to said notice, assessee submitted revised computation of income showing increased selling price to assessee - Assessing Officer accepted said valuation and completed assessment - Subsequently, he initiated re-assessment proceeding on ground that certain long-term capital gain arising out from sale of property escaped assessment - Whether mere fact that in response to notice issued by Assessing Officer, assessee had filed revised computation of income, not revised return of income, therefore it could not be ground to reopen assessment - Held, yes - Whether, moreover, assessee had disclosed all relevant facts at time of assessment, initiation of re-assessment proceedings after expiry of 4 years, from relevant year, merely on basis of change of opinion was not sustainable
Chandrakant Keshavram Singapuri [2015] 60 taxmann.com 136 (Gujarat) MARCH 11, 2015
Where principal objects of assessee were to encourage study of theory of banking and for that purpose to institute a scheme of examinations and to give certificates, scholarships and prizes, activities of assessee would squarely be covered by definition of charitable purpose and it was eligible for exemption under section 11
Indian Institute of Banking & Finance[2015] 60 taxmann.com 193 (Mumbai - Trib.) FEBRUARY 11, 2015
Section 115BBC taxing anonymous donations @ 30% is not applicable to trust being a temple or shrine; provisions of this section are meant to check inflow of unaccounted/black money into system with a modus operandi to make out as a part of accounts of institutions like university, medical institutions where problem relating to receipt of capitation fees, etc. is generally highlighted. Such type of offerings are made/put into the donation box by numerous visitors and its generally not possible for any such type of institutions to make and keep record of each of the donor with his name address etc. Even sometimes the donors out of their esteem, respect and regard and selflessness they do not want that their name be registered as a donor before the deity for whom them make the prayer in the belief that the deity is the ultimate giver of all the worth and virtues of their life. Gurudev Siddha Peeth JULY 22, 2015 ITAT MUMBAIIT APPEAL NOS. 3466 AND 3467 (MUM.) OF 2012
Income/loss from letting out of multiplex/shopping mall and cinema theatre along with amenities was to be assessed under head ‘business income’ of the assessee and not ‘Income from house property’ as main intention was found to be exploitation of property by way of commercial activities. As held by Apex Court in Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd that where the letting of the properties was in fact the business of the assessee, the income arising therefrom was to be treated under the head “Income from Business” and that it cannot be treated as income from House Property. Thus, assessee was also entitled to the claim of deductions in respect of expenditure incurred and depreciation on assets etc. in relation to such income SHREEJI EXHIBITORS vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY TRIBUNAL Aug 14, 2015 (2015) 44 CCH 0492 MumTrib
Deduction made from contractor's bill on account of amount being receivable upon there being no defect during stipulated period shall not be included in his income although he is following mercantile system . Held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shankar Constructions . ITA 135/2004. High Court discussed the principles propounded by Supreme Court inCIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) , CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC) .
CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2014 revising monetary limit to Rs. 4 lakhs for filing appeal before Tribunal shall apply to pending appeals also. Since monetary limit of appeal filed by revenue was less than Rs. 4 lakhs, same was to be dismissed-Gurudayal Sontosh Kumar[2015] 60 taxmann.com 24 (Kolkata - Trib.)FEBRUARY 4, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)