DEPUTATION POSTS
application_ post_am.pdf + applications_invited.pdf
Vacancies of Judicial Members and Accountant Members in ITAT and Ministry of Law Notification for Appointment of Members of ITAT;
order_03.pdf CBDT Distribution of Workload for DRPs;
CASE LAWS 2010-TIOL-12-ARA-IT.pdf + ficci story.pdf Federation Of Indian Chambers Of Commerce And Industry (FICCI) (Dated : March 5, 2010)
Income tax - Sec 195 - Indo-USA DTAA - Article 12.4 - Applicant is awarded a job contract to faciliate commercialisation of Indian innovations in domestic and global market space - joins hands with the IC2 Institute of University of Texas for providing managerial, technical and consultancy services - Whether payment made to the non-resident institute is 'fee for included services' as per para 4(b) of Article 12 - whether TDS is to be deducted u/s 195 on such payments made by the applicant
The applicant is awarded a contract to administer DST-Lockheed Martin India Innovation Growth Programme 2009 as joint partners with IC2 Institute of University of Texas - University was appointed as coordinating agency by the Govt of India - purpose of the programme is to identify, award and accelerate innovative new Indian technologies into the global market space - Scheme is to help Indian innovators find markets globally - participants of the programme is to receive professional business development assistance to facilitate access to markets - the Department of Science & Technology (DST) has allocated certain funds for this purpose - project is said to be non-commercial and not for profit, having the goal of making the innovators reach the global markets - The programme is open to all Indian researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs and corporate with early stage technologies that possess promising commercial potential - The programme is open to technologies from a wide range of fields - The programme offers the participants a number of training and educational opportunities designed to enhance their commercial potential:ADVANCE RULING;
2010-TIOL-123-ITAT-MUM.pdf
DCIT, Mumbai Vs K K Shah (Dated: February 22, 2010)
Income Tax - extrapolation - AO and CIT(A) draw an inference that since unrecorded transactions have been recorded from 1.1.2002 to 11.8.2002; there is a presumption that there must be some transactions before 1.1.2002 and after 11.8.2002 – Held, if there are transactions of sale or purchase on a particular date and thereafter, after a gap of some time there are some transactions recorded, then in that case, it can be said that in the intervening period there must be similar transactions i.e. from a particular date to another particular date on which transactions were recorded. This is a case of search and in the case of search, addition can be made only on the basis of material found during the course of search; there is no scope of extrapolation for the purpose of estimating turnover. Assessee's ground allowed.
On the issue of turnover - Held, that there is no question of estimating the turnover further because the turnover itself has been noted in the loose paper found during the course of search.
On the issue in respect to bifurcation of transaction of jewellery and bullion - AO has not allowed any bifurcation - treats the total turnover as jewellery transaction. However, the CIT(A) observes that there is evidence showing sale of jewellery and bullion; therefore, he directs the AO to treat 25% of turnover of bullion transaction and 75% of turnover as jewellery transaction - Held, there is no point in bifurcating the transaction at the end of the AO or to bifurcate at the ratio of 25% and 75% of bullion transaction and jewellery transaction respectively at the end of the CIT(A). There was no other material before the AO or before the CIT(A) to hold that this reconciliation filed by the assessee was not correct. AO directed to treat 54% of jewellery transaction and 46% of bullion transaction.
On the issue of GP profit - Held, it is also a fact that in wholesale transactions there is less margin of profit as compared to retail business. if 2 % rate of profit is applied on jewellery transactions and 0.4% is applied on bullion transaction then it will meet the end of justice to both sides:MUMBAI ITAT;
2010-TIOL-122-ITAT-MUM.pdf
DCIT, Mumbai Vs Jehangir H C Jehangir (Dated: January 25, 2010) Income Tax - Section 2(47), 271(1)(c) - Assessee owns a piece of land and obtains permission to develop it - converts the land into stock-in-trade and enters into joint venture agreement and starts construction work - AO takes the view that the capital gains on the proportionate land pertaining to the Building which is completed and sold, are to be shown as income during the year - Assessee contends that the capital gains or profit of the whole project consisting of three buildings could be ascertained only on completion of the whole project and hence the capital gains pertaining to the proportionate land occupied by one building could not be taxed in this year but they are taxable in the year when construction of the flats in all the three buildings are completed in the subsequent year - AO rejects the contention – CIT (A) as well as the ITAT confirm the view of the AO - AO initiates penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) cancels the penalty - Held, the issue whether the sale of stock-in-trade, which is not a capital asset, is governed by section 2(47) or not is a debatable issue - When the Assessee follows the opinion of a Senior Advocate on the interpretation of law and offers to tax, capital gains in the year of transfer of the land by way of a conveyance deed in favour of the society, it cannot be said that the Assessee was not under the bonafide belief that capital gains in question does not arise in the impugned assessment year. When the two views are possible and there is a difference in opinion on interpretation of a statute, no penalty can be levied. Revenue's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT; 2010-TIOL-121-ITAT-MUM.pdf
Gemni Exports Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 29, 2010)
Income Tax - assessee claims deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB - Held, in view of decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO, the matter is remanded to AO for fresh adjudication. Assessee's ground allowed.
On the issue of charging of interest u/s 234B - Held, charging of interest u/s 234B is mandatory and consequential in nature. Assessee ground dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT; 2010-TIOL-120-ITAT-BANG.pdf
Smt Geetha S Murthy Vs WTO, Mysore (Dated: December 11, 2009)
Wealth Tax - Assessee owns four sites - shows the same as stock-in-trade for its proprietary business - WTO rejects the contention that the sites in question are the stock-in-trade of her proprietary business - WTO also enhances the fair market value on the basis of the information received from the Sub-Registrar's office - CIT(A) dismisses the Appeal of the Assessee - Held, although it is stated in the assessment order that the value is adopted on the basis of Sub-Registrar's valuation, details of such valuation were not provided to Assessee for her rebuttal. Registered sale dated 26.11.2005 of a property near impugned sites is very relevant material supporting the stand of Assessee. In the interest of substantive justice and for a proper adjudication of the matter, the sale deed dt.26.11.2005 is to be admitted on record. Since fresh materials are admitted on record, matter remanded to AO for his examination to pass fresh orders. Assessee Appeal allowed:BANGALORE ITAT; |