Gains derived on surrender of tenancy rights would be taxable as capital gains and not as income from other sources

G.C. Shah & Co.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 49 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT NOVEMBER  5, 2014 

Disclosure of income-tax returns of a politician on the ground that it is necessary for “purity of elections” and “probity in public life” is not possible as it is not in “public interest”

Shailesh Gandhi vs. CIC & Ajit Pawar (Bombay High Court)June 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)

(i) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors(2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212 it was held that that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns is personal information which has been exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the said Act, unless involved a larger public and the CPIO and or State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;

Only payments "in pursuance of a contract" are subject to TDS. Payments made under a legal obligation are not covered

Kapurthala Improvement Trust vs. CIT (ITAT Amritsar)I.T.A. Nos. 40 to 43/Asr/2015  10th day of June 2015

The Proviso to s. 2(15) has no bearing on the grant or denial of registration. The applicability of the proviso has to be evaluated on a year to year basis and it only affects the grant of exemption u/s 11

Kapurthala Improvement Trust vs. CIT (ITAT Amritsar)

Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor

Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)June 9, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)Hon’ble 

Kerala High Court, in the case of Narath Mapila LP School Vs Union of India [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], Hon’ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Adithya Bizor P Solutions Vs Union of India [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Om Prakash Dhoot Vs Union of India [WP No. 1981 of 2014] and of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs Union of India [WP No. 771 of 2014], had earlier granted stay on the demands raised in respect of fees under section 234E

Where the issue of investment in shares has already been considered at the time of registration of trust and found to be not voilating 11(5), no subsequent revocation of registration on this ground can be made

Nimmagadda Foundation [2015] 57 taxmann.com 226 (Hyderabad - Trib.)SEPTEMBER  10, 2014 
In this case investment in shares was converted in forms specified in 11(5) in specified period.

Time Limits for Rectification under Section 154

As per section 154(7) no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed

As per Section 154(8), Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee or by the deductor on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,—

(a) making the amendment; or

(b) refusing to allow the claim

CIRCULAR NO. 14/2001 Dated- 9-11-2001 Issued by CBDT

Clarified that Considering the absence of any specific time-limits regarding disposal of application for rectification under section 154, and with a view to ensure time-bound disposal of rectification applications, the Act has inserted a new sub-section (8) in section 154 to provide that where an application for amendment under this section is made by an assessee on or after 1st June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in the said section, the authority shall pass an order within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it, either making the amendment or refusing to allow the claim. The overall time-limit of four years provided in the section for passing any rectification order shall however continue to apply. In other words, the period of six months mentioned in the new sub-section (8) cannot extend, under any circumstances, beyond the overall time-limit of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified was passed. These amendments will take effect from 1st June, 2001.

Means if 6 months lapse then also the authority concerned can pass order within four years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended. –

The department cannot take any coercive measure or recover any outstanding dues without first disposing of the assessee’s petition. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgement in the case of Sultan Leather Finishers (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 191 ITR 179 (All.)

If inspite of reminders and persuasion, the A.O. is still not disposing of the rectification petition, the only legal option available to the assessee is to file a writ petition of “Mandamus” for securing judicial enforcement of public duties, performance of which has been wrongfully refused  before the jurisdictional High Court

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Rajamma vs. ITO 152 ITR 657(Ker), where the A.O. was not disposing of the rectification petition u/s. 154, held that an application for relief cannot be kept in cold storage and directed the A.O. to dispose of sec. 154 application within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

However, to avoid the cost, one option available to the assessee is to approach Income-tax Ombudsman by filing a complaint with him for non-disposal of sec. 154 petition by the A.O. as per Income Tax Ombudsman Guidelines, 2006 .

Expeditious Disposal of Rectifications applications- Instructions dtd 05-06-2015

-                Citizen Charter requires disposal with in two months from    the end of month in which applications is made. As Interim action plan of CBDT, all applications received up   to 31-03-2015 were required to be disposed off till 15-05-2015. Feedback report to be sent to Zonal Members till 20-06-2015    under intimation to Member (IT).  Supervisory Authorities to ensure maintenance of rectification registers by AOs as per instructions dated 05-07-2013 [03/2015] For verification and correction of demand Circular No. 08/2015 dated 14-05-2015 to be followed

Changes In Direct Tax Provisions Effective from 01-06-2015

1.       As per Section 269SS if specified sum (any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) taken or accepted in cash is Rs. 20,000 or more , penalty equal to amount taken shall be imposed under S. 271D.

2.       As per Section 269T, if specified advance (any sum of money in the nature of advance, by whatever name called, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) is repaid in cash and amount received  together with interest is Rs. 20000 or more (whether in the name of person making repayment singly or jointly with some other person), penalty equal to amount repaid shall be imposed under S.271E

Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013

• The amount of security has been enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 to Rs. 5 lakh in CBLR 2013.

Introduction of New Work Sheet for Vat Dealers In Punjab

Introduction: The Vat department vide Notification dated 15-11-2013, had amended section 13(1) proviso and allowance of Input tax credit was restricted to goods sold or used in manufacturing, processing or packing of taxable goods w.e.f. 01-04-2014. The various trade organizations pitched their voice against this law which is going to deny their rightful claim of Input tax credit and going to keep them glued to their account books in general  and stock records in particular. However the department in its spree to collect more and more taxes decided to give it a go ahead and has come out with a grandiose worksheet vide public notice dated 11-06-2014. However following issues require the attention of the department:

EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54F

Even amidst  the days when tax department is tightening its grip over the soft and easily bendable neck  of the taxpayer, there are still two sections which are most favorite sections  of the assesses in general and people in housing and reality sector in particular. Both section 54 and 54F have normally been liberally construed by our judiciary and are vital blood vessel of housing infrastructure of our economy and of course at the same time they are heart beat of chapter IV-E on Capital Gains Taxation.  Liberal Interpretation of Section 54 and 54F has been influenced by two important Rules of Interpretation.

Issues in Single Stage Taxation system in Punjab

Single Stage Taxation system, now while it is flowing and roaring in the taxation system of Punjab requires attention at a few subtle points:

1.      Not Supported by appropriate Legislation

Schedule A and Schedule E have been amended to give effect to single stage taxation system. While Schedule A has its genesis in Section 16, Schedule E bears its roots in Section 8. As per Schedule A , specified commodities have been made tax free at wholesaler or distributor or retailer stage. However, section 16 bears no relation with stages of goods

At the same time, Schedule E has made specified goods taxable at first point of Sale i.e. manufacturer or first importer, while section 8 has not been amended at all .

                        Hence first point taxation system at first instance appears to be ultra vires the provisions of Punjab Vat Act.

Compulsory Manual Scrutiny Plan for 2013-14 Instructions dated 05-08-2013

1. Cases where value of International Transaction exceeds 15 crores
2. Cases where addition made on transfer pricing issue in earlier assessment year is more than 10 crores and matter is either confirmed in the appeal or is pending before an appellate authority
3. Cases involving addition in earlier assessment year in excess of 10 lacs on substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority.

Refund against return filed after period u/s 139(4)

As per Instruction No. 225/228/93-IT (A-II) dated 12.10.93 the assessee may file claim of refund before the A.O. after expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 139(4).

As per the said instruction, following four conditions are required to be satisfied to avail the benefit-

            (i)         Refund amount does not exceed Rs. 5 lacs (Earlier, it was Rs. 1 lac )

            (ii)        There is no claim for carry forward of loss.

            (iii)       There is no claim for additional refund after completion of original assessment.

            (iv)       Income is not assessable in the hands of any other person (eg. Minor)

ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT OF RICE EXPORTERS

INDEX to Note regarding VAT assessments being made in the case of Rice Exporters
Column No	Summary
1.1	The department is quoting case of Khushi Ram Behari Lal for taxing closing stock which is irrelevant and not applicable. Haryana Tax Tribunal has already held in the case of KRBL Ltd that closing stock of paddy for export can not be taxed. There is no section in Punjab Vat Act, 2005 wherein closing stock of a continuing dealer can be taxed.
1.2	The department is taking stand that each year is an independent year and therefore closing stock has to be taxed. Such words are not there in the law and this intention is against the rules of interpretation. Further Indirect tax laws are different in concept from Direct Tax laws due to constitutional provisions.

No penalty can be levied where income is estimated

1. CIT vs Whiteline Chemicals (Guj) ITA 496/2012 dtd 15-01-2013
2. CIT vs Vatika Cosntruction Pvt Ltd ITA 1246/2010 dtd 11-10-2012
3. CIT vs P Rojes (Mad) 5-2-2013 ITA 341/2010

Allowability of partners' salary and interest against additional income under survey

Where survey is conducted on the assessee and assessee is able to prove that amount surrendered is from business and not income from other sources. Then deduction of partners' salary and partners' interest shall be allowed
CIT vs S.K. Sri Giri & Bros. 298 ITR 13 (Kar)

Where during survey additional income is surrendered by the assessee represented by excess stock and excess cash , then it has direct nexus with business of the firm. There fore partners remuneration shall be allowed out of additional income
Royal Sun rise vs ITO 99 TTJ 1305 (Bang)

Institute conducting coaching classes and charging fees, denial of exemption is held to be not valid.(S. 10(23C) (vi))

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was denied exemption u/s. 10(23C) (vi) for the A.Y. 2006-07 onwards on the grounds that (i) the Institute was holding coaching classes and, therefore, was not

Compensation received on demolition of borewell is agricultural income

Ghanshyam Mudgal v. ITO (2012) 143 TTJ (UO) 60 (JP), BCAJ Pg. 43, Vol. 44-A Part 1, April 2012(Jaipur) (Trib.)

Conversion of raw peas into pea seeds constitute agricultural income

Assessee is engaged in cultivating and growing raw peas and also in the process of converting them into pea seeds so as to render them fit for sale and also selling seeds in the market and to various godowns. Income derived from pea seeds constituted agricultural income.(A.Y.1997-98)
CIT v. Rana Gurjit Singh (2012) 340 ITR 108/75 DTR 376 (P&H.)(High Court)

Company supplying seeds to farmers under agreement income derived by company is not agricultural income

The assessee company is in the business of cultivation, production and marketing of open-hybrid seeds both for the domestic and international market and entered in to agreement with the farmers for production of pen –hybrid seeds for its own benefit or on behalf of its overseas principals. Assessee Company supplied the seeds & supervised the cultivation of seeds. After harvesting, the company purchased from farmers at fixed price. Assessee company has done the process of cleaning, grading and converting into certified seeds. Assessee has claimed entire income as exempt under section 10(1). Assessing Officer denied the exemption. On appeal before the Tribunal the tribunal opined that 10 percent of the net profit should be treated as business income and balance 90 percent of the net profit as agricultural income exempt from tax. On appeal to High Court by revenue the court held that the income is not agricultural income.( A.Y. 1998-99 to 2004-05) CIT v. Namdhari Seeds P. Ltd ( 2012) 341 ITR 342 (Karn.) (High court)

Product fit for marketing is agricultural income and extraction of oil from fruit / kernel is an industrial activity and assessable as business income.

The assessee is a plantation company which is engaged in cultivation of oil and processing and extraction of crude palm oil from fruit as well as from the kernel. The Assessing Officer held that part of income earned by assessee from sale of palm oil as business income by applying Rule 7 of the income –tax rules . In appeal the view of Assessing Officer was confirmed. On further appeal, the High Court held that the processing covered by item(ii) of section 2(IA)(b) is only so much of process which a cultivator ordinarily engages to make product for marketing, therefore income that is attributable to agricultural operations is the market value of palm fruit with pulp and kernel. Activity carried out by assessee in extraction of oil from fruit /from kernel is an industrial activity and therefore income from such activity is assessable as its ‘profits and gains of business’ under section 28(i). Appeal was decided in favour of revenue.(A.Ys 1997-98 to 2006-07)
Oil Palm India Ltd v. ACIT ( 2012) 206 Taxman 1 (Ker.) (High Court)

Barren Land is not agricultural Land and liable for capital gains tax

Assessee sold the land and claimed the exemption on the said transaction treating the same as agricultural land. Tribunal held that land in question was a barren land surrounded by rocky mountains and not fit for agricultural operations. Sale of the said land was not for agricultural purpose but for purpose of construction of flats, therefore the land in question is capital asset and liable to capital gains tax. (A. Ys. 2002-03 to 2007-08).
Suresh Kumar D.Shah v. DCIT (2012) 49 SOT 341 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

Promissory Estopel held not applicable to Cinema- Entertainment tax not reduced on Cinemas

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Naulakha Theatre and other 47 cases of cinems in Punjab CWP 987/2005 dated 07-05-2013
Cases on promissior estoppel discussed
M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & others AIR 1979 SC 621
State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. & another (2004) 6 SCC 465
Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. & another Vs. State of Haryana & others (2006) 3 SCC 620.

Interest free Loan to Directors and sister concerns- Commercial Expediency of transactions to be examined

SA Builders 288 ITR 1decision is applicable if loan to sister concerns satisfies commercial expediency test. Matter restored to CIT A to determine the same
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Southern Bottlers Ltd ITA 225/2004 dated 07-05-2013

High Court dismisses the writ filed by CA YK Sud against members of ITAT Amritsar being bereft of any material

YK Sud vs. President ITAT & Ors. CWP 9731 of 2013 dated 08-05-2013

No liability can be enforced against surety liable for limited period

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Golden Rolls(P) Ltd CWP 5234/2013 dated 23-05-2013

Furnishing of bank guarantee in lieu of 25% deposit u/s 62(5) is not acceptable

Punjanb and Haryana High Court in Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Limited CWP 11456/2013

Power to recall or review its order by adjudicating authority is not inherent power and must be specifically provided in the Act

Hanuman Rice Traders CWP 11398/2013  dated 22-05-2013
Followed Supreme Court in Kalabharti Advertisement 2010 9 SCC 437

Cenvat Credit on Tool Kits and first aid boxes provided by automobile manufacturer is allowable

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Honda Motorcycles and Scooters CEA 52/2012 dated 09-05-2013
Bajaj Auto Limited 88 ELT 355 and Bajaj Tempo Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise followed

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can not be imposed for addition on basis of deeming fiction u/s 50C

CIT Vs. Madan Teatres Ltd., ITAT No. 62 of 2013, Date of decision: 14.05.2013, Calcutta High Cour

Expenditure on back up, support and maintenance of existing hardware and software is revenue in nature

CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Limited (2011) 245 CTR 529 (Del.)

S.43B applies to employee contribution also

Kichha Sugar Company Limited (Uttarakhand HC)
Same view adopted in
AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del)
 Bharti Shipyard 132 ITD 53 (SB Mum)
Desh Rakshak Aushadhalya 313 ITR 140 (Utt.)
Lakhani India 324 ITR 73 (P&H)

ITAT Mumbai in LKP Securities has taken contrarry stand

Calculation of period of 12 months/36 months for capital gains

Bharti Gupta Ramola v. CIT (2012) 72 DTR 387/251 CTR 139 (Delhi)(High Court)

Interest Expenditure incurred before commencement of business is also allowable as revenue expenditure

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vardhman Polytex ITA 55/2013 relying upon Supreme Court judgement in assessee's own case in Civil Appela 6438 of 2012 dated 12-09-2012 titled Vardhman Polytex vs CIT.
Supreme Court had relied upon its earlier judgement in case in Core Health Care Limited 298 ITR 194
Challapali Sugar Ltd 98 ITR 167 (SC) held not applicable

Depreciaiton allowable in hands of finance company acting like a lessor

PKF Finance Ltd 158/2002 dated 13-05-2013
Supreme Court decision in case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT 2013 3 SCC 541 followed:

Land although outside the specified distance from limits of one municipality but with in limits other municiplality is capital asset u/s 2(14)

CIT vs Smt Anjana Sehgal ITA 276/2004 decided on 01-03-2011
CIT vs Smt Neeru Aggarwal ITA 209/2012 decided on 29-04-2013
The followings factors are irrelevant to determine whether land is capital asset or not:
i) Land is situated in some other state while municipality is situated in some other state (As per Anajna Sehgal)

ii) Land is boyond specified limit from municipality in whose revenue records land appears while the land is in municipal limits or with in specidied distance from another municipality (whose revenue records do not cover that land in quastion) (As per Neeru Aggarwal)

Exemption and Deduction for Interest

Saving Bank Interest: Deduciton  up to Rs.10000 u/s 80TTA
Post officeSaving Bank Interest
Rs3500 exempt u/s 10(15)(i) vide Notificaiton No.SO 1296(E) dtd 3-6-11
Rs. 10000 deduction u/s 8OTTA

Post Office Cumulative Time Deposits Rules 1981
For Investment in five year time deposits there is deduction u/s 80C
Interest is exempt u/s 10(15)(i) vide Notification No. SO 607(E) dated 9-6-1989

Service Tax and Vat on Builders and Developers

Builders and Developers How the controversy arose

•         Supreme Court in case of K.Raheja Development Corporation (2005) 2 STT 178 SC which was a case on Karnataka General Sales Tax Act held that where developer was undertaking construction on behalf of prospective flat owners, it tantamounts to works contract and exigible to sales tax

•         In this case , the assessee had entered into development agreements with land owners. Developer to there after get the plan approved and after completion flats were to be handed over to those land owners who were to get undivided interest in the land also. There after owners to transfer flats to housing society. It was in this case that transaction was held to be works contract

•         On the basis of decision of K.Raheja Development Corporation , DG Service tax , Mumbai vide letter dated 16-02-2006 (withdrawn since 23-08-2007) sought to impose service tax on service part of transaction.

Service Tax on Works Contract

Service Portion in Works Contract

•         Work Contract vs. Works Contract

•         Works contract has been defined in section 65B(54) of the Act as a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, maintenance (substituting “improvement”), repair, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property (substituting “building or structure on land”) or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to any movable or immovable property (substituting “building or structure on land”). (Substitution made in  Finance Bill 2012 by Lok Sabha)

No penalty can be levied for inadvertent depreciation mistake

Somany Evergreen Knits Limited (Bom HC)
Other decisions on non levy of penalty for inadvertent mistake:
Benet Colemn(Bom)
PWC 348 ITR 306(SC)
Sania Mirza(AP)
Societex((Delhi)
Hans Christian Gass(Bom)

Vat issues relating to rice shellers

1.Whether purchase tax can be levied on purchase of paddy which goes into production of rice meant for export and domestically sold  by products such as broken rice, husk etc.
As per Article section 5(3), section 15(ca) of Central Sales Tax Act and section 84 of Punjab Vat Act no tax can be collected on purchase of paddy for the purpose of export of rice.
As per decision of Punjab and Haryana High court on 14-01-2011 reported in 16 STM 727 in case of KRBL" It can not be held that irrespective of legislative competence of the legislature, tax could be recovered leaving the remedy of refund being sought, Tax can be levied only by authority of law and the State legislature can recover tax only if it is with in its legislative competence. In case tax is evaded in any manner, the authorities can act according to statutory provisions dealing with evasion of tax".
Hence no purchase tax can be levied on purchase of paddy which goes into production of rice meant for export
However as per Rule 21(2A) inserted w.e.f. 08-11-2010, if goods manufactured  are sold at price lower than cost price, the ITC shall be reversed on excess of cost price over sale price. Since price of paddy is more than sale price of by products, the department might invoke Rule 21(2A).

However as per High Court of Allahabad decision in case of KRBL rendered on 18-01-2010 ITA 1666 of 2010 ".......Learned Counsel for the assessee is justified in saying that no raw material was ever purchased for the manufacture of any waste product or any bye product. The assessee has established its unit for the manufacture of rice and used its entire raw material for the manufacture of rice........."

Therefore Rule 21(2A) can not be invoked.

Hence no purchase tax can be levied on purchase of paddy which goes into production domestically sold  by products such as broken rice, husk etc.


2.Whether purchase tax is required to be reversed on rice manufactured from paddy and sold in course of interstate trade or commerce as per section 19(5) of Punjab Vat Act 2005
As per section 19(5)
"Input Tax credit on the goods specified in Schedule H or the products manufactured therefrom, when sold in the course of inter state trade or commerce shall be available only to the extent of Central Sales Tax chargeable under Central Sales Tax Act 1956"

If we substitute the words " paddy " and rice it goes as under:

Input Tax credit on paddy when sold in the course of inter state trade or commerce shall be available only to the extent of Central Sales Tax chargeable under Central Sales Tax Act 1956

Input Tax credit on rice manufactured from paddy, when sold in the course of inter state trade or commerce shall be available only to the extent of Central Sales Tax chargeable under Central Sales Tax Act 1956.

Further as per section 15(c) of CST where tax on purchase of paddy is levied under state law then tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy shall be reduced by amount of tax levied on paddy.
Section 15(c) doen not talk about any partial adjustment.

Hence no ITC should be reversed on rice manufactured from paddy and sold in course of interstate trade or commerce.

3. Whether purchase tax can be levied on closing stock at the end of financial year 
Taxable event under Punjab Vat Act is sale or purchase of goods hence no tax can be levied on closing stock.
Further in case of exporters the stock of paddy gets exported , hence no purchase tax can be levied on paddy meant for procurement of rice for export.

Sale consideration invested in construction of new house which remains incomplete after 3 years from date of transfer , still s. 54 F exemption shall be allowed

Smt. Usha Vaid ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IT Appeal No. 98 (Asr.) of 2011 July 27, 2012
CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286

Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 59 ITD 94

Smt. Ranjit Sandhu v. Dy. CIT [2010] 133 TTJ 46 (Chd)(UO).

S.54F exemption is available on house constructed on agricultural land

Om Prakash Goyal IT APPEAL NO. 647 (JP) OF 2011 FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ITAT JAIPUR

S.54F exemption is available for house outside India also

Vinay Mishra (Banglore Tribunal) 12-10-2012 ITA 895/Bang/2012
Mrs. Prema P. Shah v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 60 (Mum.
ITO v. Dr. Girish M. Shah in I. T. A. No. 3582/Mum/2009, dated 19-2-2010 

Once an assessee objects to stamp duty value u/s 50C AO has to refer the case for valuaiton and is bound by the report of DVO

ATE Enterprises P Ltd. IT APPEAL NOs. 2873 & 2874 (MUM.) OF 2011 SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
Smt. T.V. Nagasena IT Appeal No. 296 (Bang.) of 2011 May 31, 2012
Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar Allahabad High Court IT APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2008 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011
M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All)
CWT v. Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307
Cental Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 8 of 2002, dated August 27, 2002 (see [2002] 258 ITR (St.) 13)

Value of Entire land appurtenant to building can not be considered for s.54/54F

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Smt. Asha George

v.

Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

IT APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2012

Date of Pronouncement – 16.01.2013

Minimum 30% marks for each subject and minimum 50% in aggregate to be obtained for passing CPT as per ICAI announcement dated 20-02-2013

Foreign Exchange fluctuation gain on share Capital raised in foreign country and repatriated to India on need basis for working capital requirement not to be treated revenue receipt

CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd 2011 337 ITR 21 (Delhi)
Delhi High Court observed that manner of utilization was approved by Ministry of Finance. High Court further held that capital raised whether in or outside India can be utilized both for acquiring fixed assets and to meet other expenses of organization i.e. working capital. For determining the nature of receipts due consideration should be given to the source of funds and not to the ultimate use of funds. Entire gain has to be treated as capital receipt as source of fund in this case is capital in future