- 2020 (11) TMI 709 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A - Tribunal deleting the disallowance as there was no earning of exempt income during the assessment year - Whether no exempt income received by assessee? - non recording of satisfaction - amendment to Rule 8D brought in Finance Act, 2016 with regard to the quantum of expenditure that could be disallowed - HELD THAT:- Identical substantial question of law was considered by this Court in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Celebrity Fashion Ltd. [2020 (9) TMI 1022 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, wherein it was held that in terms of Section 14A of the Act, only expenditure, which was proved to be incurred in relation to earning of tax free income, could be disallowed and such provision could not be extended to disallow expenditure, which was assumed to have been incurred for earning tax free ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 708 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 35(2)(AB) - expenditure outside the in-house R & D facility - Whether AO has rightly held that clinical trial expenditure is not eligible for weighted R & D deduction u/s 35(2)(AB) and it will be eligible for weighted deduction only if the expenditure is incurred on an in-house R & D facility? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has allowed the deduction in respect of expenses incurred by the assessee on scientific research on in-house research and development facility by placing reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court. It is pertinent to mention here that against the aforesaid decision, the revenue preferred special leave petition and CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. [2015 (11) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT] has remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh along with other issues. Since the Tribunal has neither ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 707 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment of income - inclusion of the share income of the minor from the firm which had closed its accounting year on 10.8.75 in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 - Whether the amended provision which had come into effect from 1.10.75 will apply to an income which had accrued on 10.8.75 for the assessment to be made for the assessment year 1976-77? - HELD THAT:- As relying on SRI LOKNATH GOENKA, SMT. NARMADA DEVI [2019 (8) TMI 458 - PATNA HIGH COURT] Appellate Tribunal was not correct, in law, in upholding the inclusion of the share income of the minor from the firm M/s. Om Prakash & Co. for it accrued on 10.08.1975, in the assessment year 1976-77, and the amendment which came into effect only on 1.10.1975 was to apply only prospectively and not retrospectively.
- 2020 (11) TMI 706 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments - HELD THAT:- As assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken o....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 705 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Appeal is disposed of by remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue regarding disallowance under Section 14A as relying on M/s. Marg Limited [2020 (10) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein held that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with Section 14A of the Act can never exceed the exempted income earned by the Assessee during the particular assessment year and further, without recording the satisfaction by the Assessing Authority that the apportionment of such disallowable expenditure made by the Assessee with respect to the exempted income is not acceptable for reasons to be assigned the Assessing Authority, he cannot resort to the computation method under Rule 8D.
- 2020 (11) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Stay of penalty demand subject to payment of 20% of the said amount - Petitioner also sought to restrain the respondents from initiating recovery of any demand of penalty imposed on the petitioner for the relevant assessment years - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that even if the present writ petition(s) are dismissed at this stage, the maximum amount that the petitioners can be directed to deposit pursuant to the impugned orders and circulars issued by the CBDT would be 20% of the remaining demand which can only be ₹ 1,71,03,416/-. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of the view that there is no reasonable ground for the revenue to hold the excess amount i.e. ₹ 8,28,96,584/- and the same is directed to be released to the petitioners within four weeks. With these directions, present writ petitions and pending applications stand disposed of.
- 2020 (11) TMI 654 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Computation of taxable income - interest accrued on non performing assets - addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) - assessee maintaining mercantile system of accounting - Tribunal held that the provision for non performing assets made by assessee is proper as it is done as per RBI guidelines - whether RBI guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Section 145 of the I.T. Act? - HELD THAT:- First substantial question of law has already been answered by a bench of this court vide judgment in The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd [2014 (10) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] and Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by Supreme Court keeping the question of law open. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. For the reasons assigned above the first subst....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 653 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s.10A - assessee's activity of human resources services are IT enabled services - whether assessee was only making available the data base of qualified IT personnel and entitled to deduction u/s. 10A? - HELD THAT:- Section 10A of the Act deals with special provision in respect of newly established undertaking in Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and provides for deduction. The assessee admittedly is involved in providing human resource services and from the perusal of the order passed by the AO it is evident that if the nature of activity of the assessee is maintenance of computerized database with regard to various types of qualified Information Technology personnel available in India and the company provides the customers with information to potential candidates, which would meet the requirements on the customers. Role of the compan....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 652 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
TDS on interest on borrowings - Assessment of Trust - Tribunal upholding the order of the lower authorities that the share of the beneficiaries is indeterminate and therefore the appellant is liable for tax at maximum marginal rate? - Power of Tribunal when it disagree with earlier decision of Tribunal - as per assessee individual beneficiaries for whose benefit the funds have been borrowed do not have taxable income and are not liable to deduct tax at source - Application of principle of mutuality - HELD THAT:- The Substantial Questions of Law raised in this appeal were considered viz., in the case of Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust, Thellar [2019 (7) TMI 1151 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein held there are only two methods of dealing such a situation. Firstly, if the decision is per incurium, a finding to the said effect has to be given. Sec....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - HELD THAT:- As the disputed demand arises out of an issue which is covered in petitioner favour by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in DIT v. Ericsson A.B. [2011 (12) TMI 91 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court grants a stay of the demand of Rupees twenty-nine crores, ninety-three lakhs, six hundred and three arising out of the final assessment order dated 07th February, 2020 for the relevant assessment year 2017-2018 till the disposal of the appeal pending before the CIT (Appeal). The CIT (Appeal) is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks. Since the appeal has been directed to be disposed expeditiously, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for petitioner assures and undertakes to this Court that the petitioner shall not seek refund for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 till the disposal of the said appeal.
- 2020 (11) TMI 613 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Tribunal confirming the decision of CIT (A) restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on the question of disallowance under Section 14A in conformity with the judicial precedents, find substantial merit in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) for limiting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. Hence, we decline to interfere. - Decided against revenue. Nature of expenditure - expenses incurred on account of professional and legal fees - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Professional fees paid by Appellant are for existing business and not incurred for analyzing the market for new line of business or is not for diversification of its business. By incurring such expenditure, Appellant is constantly getting ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 612 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Rectification of TDS mismatch - seeking refund along with interest for the delayed period from the date of deduction of TDS to the date of actual granting of refund - amount of ₹ 1,15,034/- was deducted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India from the payment made to the petitioner towards TDS, while tax payable by the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 was only ₹ 64,025/-. The petitioner was awaiting refund. - HELD THAT:- As seen that TDS has been deducted as per Ext.P3 Certificate issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. According to the petitioner, the petitioner produced original of Ext.P3 along with Ext.P1 ITR. The case of the respondents is that this remittance is of the year 2007-08 and its entry is not reflected in Database. When the petitioner asserts that original of Ext.P3 has already been submi....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 575 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Claim the provision for leave encashment u/s.43B - Tribunal order holding that the Assessee was not eligible to claim the provision for leave encashment which has been determined scientifically and accurately based on actuarial valuation, and the incurring of expenditure is certain and has arisen in the previous year ended in 31st March 2004 - HELD THAT:- The above substantial questions of law have to be answered against the appellant/assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Exide Industries Limited [2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT]. The High Court of Kerala in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd [2014 (2) TMI 1080 - KERALA HIGH COURT] also held that deduction for leave encashment is allowable only on actual payment. Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration has to be necessarily answered against the appellant/assessee
- 2020 (11) TMI 567 - ITAT CHENNAI
Income accrued in India - Shipping income earned in India - India Singapore DTAA - whether shipping income is exempt u/s 13F of Singapore income tax, the DTAA benefit be denied to the assessee? - assessee is a tax resident of Singapore - HELD THAT:- AO referring to Article 24 of the tax treaty, was of the opinion that although global shipping income of a Singapore tax resident is taxable only at resident State, but by virtue of Article 24 exemption would apply only to the extent of the amount repatriated / remitted to Singapore. In our view, the above conclusion of the AO is under the misconception of the provisions of India Singapore tax treaty, because as per Article 8 of India Singapore tax treaty, it was clearly specified that only the resident country has the right of taxation of freight income earned from operation of ships in inter....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 566 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provision for Leave Encashment - Validity of order the Tribunal holding that no expenditure shall be allowed u/s.43B(f) on account of any leave salary unless the expenditure is actually paid? - HELD THAT:- The above substantial questions of law have to be answered against the appellant/assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Exide Industries Limited [2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT] . - Decided in favour of revenue.
- 2020 (11) TMI 565 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D being the exempt income - HELD THAT:- The question proposed by the Revenue is no longer res integra relying on cases Vision Finstock Limited [2017 (7) TMI 1277 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], SC [2018 (7) TMI 1246 - SC ORDER] , Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited [2019 (7) TMI 541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 523 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Best judgment assessment - as contented petitioner did not have notice of the proposed assessment proceedings and as such, the petitioner could not furnish the details - demand notice - revenue said request for stay of the operation of the impugned order would be considered by the appellate authority only if 20% of the amount due as per the impugned assessment order is deposited - HELD THAT:- Assessment is based on the best judgment and no notice is addressed to the aforementioned petitioner email ID, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to set aside the impugned Assessment Order and the consequential Demand Notice without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessment remitting the matter for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the impugned demand ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 488 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Compulsory audit u/s 142(2A) - seeking its quashment on the ground that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- A questionnaire was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142. The reply was not found satisfactory for the reasons that the petitioner was not maintaining its books of account accurately and has not followed the accounting principles correctly and the nature of accounts being complex and bulky led the department to take recourse to compulsory audit. Though the impugned action is questioned on the ground that effective opportunity of hearing was not given. However, the record reveals that before taking decision on 31.12.2019 a notice was issued on 30.12.2019 to the petitioner vide DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1023245419(1) dated 27.12.2019 was given the opportunity of hearin....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 487 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cash seized during the search - HELD THAT:- Assessee did not produce any material despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search belonged to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. Even otherwise, the aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact, which does not suffer from any perversity. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse - Decided against assessee.
- 2020 (11) TMI 486 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MAT computations u/s 115JB on banking companies - HELD THAT:- First substantial question of law has already been answered against the revenue in M/S. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED [2020 (1) TMI 1116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. The aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the assessee could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. First substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered against the revenue. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - bad debts - assessee has not debited any bad debts write off in the profit and loss account and only the provision for bad debts (prudential write off) has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income as bad debt write off? - HELD THAT:- Second substantial question of law has also been answered against the revenue in M/S. VIJAYA BANK [2014 (10) TMI 1015 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] -The ....... + More
