Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 2012 (4) Income Tax - 2012 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 361 to 380 of 421 Records

• 2012 (4) TMI 192 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of order of Tribunal setting aside the entire dis-allowance of Rs 28.69 lacs in respect of Bad debts to the file of A.O. to decide fresh when assessee had withdrawn its appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT upholding disallowance of Rs 14.96 lacs only – appeal before Tribunal barred by limitation - assessee withdrew its appeal during the hearing and sought to press in aid the provisions of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 – Held that:- Under Rule 27 the Respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appealed against the order, on any of the grounds decided against him which renders that Assessee would be entitled to urge that the deletion of the disallowance of Rs.13.73 lacs by the CIT(A) was correct and proper. Assessee, however, would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Rule 27 in regard disallowance of Rs.14.96 lacs confirmed by CIT(A).

  Therefore, Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) in its entirety. Order of the Tribunal would have to be confirmed only to the extent to which it restores the proceedings to the Assessing Officer as regards the amount of Rs.13.73 lacs – Decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 191 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Exception granted in proviso of Section 220(1) – period of less than 30 days granted for deposit of demand of Rs 36.56 crores – assessee contended no detriment to the interests of the Revenue since ACIT has already levied a provisional attachment u/s 281B on assesse’s investment in mutual funds of Rs 36.54 crores – Held that:- Proviso to Section 220(1) which empowers the AO to demand payment within a period lesser than 30 days with the prior approval of the JCIT cannot be exercised casually and without due application of mind. In present case, since Revenue is adequately protected by the attachment levied u/s 281B, there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed u/s 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue. The detriment to the Revenue must be akin to a situation where the demand of the Revenue is liable to be defeated by an abuse of process by the Assessee. Therefore, order of A.O. was not justified and was contrary to law. Petition is disposed off by directing continuation of provisional attachment u/s 281 B until disposal of appeal before CIT(Appeals). No coercive steps will be taken for recovery of demand pending the appeal – Decided in favor of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 190 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Nature of 'Usance Interest' – assessee engaged in business of manufacturing of cables of different types – imports raw material from parties who are non-residents – finance charges/usance charges paid for availing credit under LC - whether usance interest comes within meaning of Section 2(28) – assessee contending it to be partaking character of purchase price - taxability in view of DTAA between India and countries where-from raw material is imported – dis-allowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source – AY 02-03 - Held that:- There was no nexus between the interest amount and fixation of the price of the raw materials purchased. Price of the material supplied was reflected in a separate invoice and interest paid for availing credit facility of 180 days from the date of bill of lading was reflected in separate invoice. The nexus of interest was only with the period from which the purchase price of the raw material became due viz., the date of bill of lading. Therefore, usance interest, is interest within the meaning of sec. 2(28A) and same would be deemed to have accrued and arisen in India in view of the provisions of sec. 9(1)(v)(b) of the Act.

  Taxability in view of DTAA between India and the respective countries – Held that:- Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had discussed the issue in the light of the relevant DTAA. Therefore, we remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.

  Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) – In present case, payment is made to to non-residents and in the event of doubt the Assessee ought to have approached the AO for appropriate certificate u/s.195. He cannot plead bonafide belief to stand out of the said provisions.

  Addition of unutilized Modvat credit to the value of Closing stock – Held that:- Addition made by the AO as modified by the CIT(A) i.e. to allow it under u/s 43B if it is paid before filing of returns, has to be sustained but the AO should be directed to allow corresponding adjustment to the opening stock in respect of unutilized Modvat credit. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  Prior period expenses – mercantile system of accounting – AY 2001-02 - Held that:- No infirmity is found in the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee if these expenses are related to that year after verification. The same is therefore upheld – Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  Waiver of penalty for concealment – dis-allowances in respect of write off of leasehold premium, prior period expenses, payment of gratuity, unexplained expenses – AY 99-2000 – Held that:- It is seen that few dis-allowances have been deleted by Tribunal and dis-allowance in respect of write off of leasehold premium was then a matter of debate hence in view of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) mere rejection of a claim for deduction made by the assessee will not give rise to imposition of penalty for concealment – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 189 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Method of accounting or royalty and assessment of reimbursement of expenses by the AO - Singapore based company - licensing of software to one of the customers which is its hundred per cent subsidiary - Held that:- even if there is force in the argument that the interpretation may lead to delay in payment of tax, it will be useful only in such cases where the AO makes out a case that the delay was with a view to defer the payment of tax. In absence of such a finding by the AO, it is held that the argument is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, it is held that royalty and FTS are taxable on payment basis and not on accrual basis.

  Taxability of reimbursement of expenses - held that:- royalties and FTS are taxable on payment basis, and reimbursement of traveling expenses will have to be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of taxation.

  Whether, the assessee is liable to pay surcharge?- held that:- circular no. 734 does not mention anything about surcharge for the purpose of deduction of tax at source from payments by way of dividends, interest and royalties. What is good for the TDS is also good for the taxation. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay surcharge.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 187 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Capitalization of regularization fee paid - Construction of hospital building - Held that:- The regularization fee paid by the assessee has a direct nexus to the construction of the hospital building as it is paid only for the purpose of regularizing the violations committed in the course of constructing the building - State Government Ordinance has been held to be unconstitutional but even then, the Hon'ble High Court has not directed to repay the amount to the defaulters - It cannot be held that the payment could not be booked anywhere in the business accounts of the assessee - The assessee has rightly booked the payment under the cost of construction of the hospital building - appeals are to be allowed

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 186 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Payments made by the assessee-company for subcontracting its works contract - payment of hire charges/charter fees to EMPL - royalty u/s 9(1) and article 12 of the DTAA between India and Singapore - Held that:- the contract given to EMPL was in the nature of sub-contract to undertake on behalf of the assessee's dredging work with the equipment and manpower of EMPL - It is only hiring of the equipment and the assessee did not use the dredger or any part thereof on its own neither it was given any right to use - in order to assess the payment as business receipt of the EMPL it has to be established that there is a permanent establishment of EMPL in India which is not possible since the dredger Ketam has been operated in India for less than 183 days - the liability u/s 195 to deduct TDS depends upon changeability of tax in the hands of recipient and the assessee did not use the dredger or any part thereof on its own, nor had apparent acquired any right to use it

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 173 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Arm's Length Price - found some international transactions exceeding the limit prescribed in the assessee's return and a reference to TPO for determination of arms length price - TPO issued a letter to assessee to furnish required information as per s. 92D and 92E of the Act - assessee filed documents after the statutory time limit of 30 days - A.O. levied a penalty under Section 271G of the Act - as per the assessee, it was the initial year of its operations and it had no experience regarding transfer pricing regulations - A.O. was of the opinion that ignorance of law was not an excuse - argument of the assessee that he had substantially complied with the said letter of TPO since 12 out of 16 items were filed - the allegation of TPO that it had failed to comply with the notice was incorrect – Held that:- If the Revenue alleges that there has been failure of the assessee with regard to production of any of the record, it was required to point out which record it had failed to produce and whether such record was one which was prescribed under Section 92D(1) to be maintained by an assessee in respect of the international transactions entered into by it - was not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271G of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting such penalty. No interference is required

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Trust – Hospital – approval for continuation of exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) for the period from 2009-10 onwards denied by Chief CIT on ground that nature of chemist shop run in Hospital is akin to trading activity hence trust does not exist solely for the purposes of philanthropy – Held that:- Running the chemist shop in the present case is not the dominant object of the trust. Chief CIT has clearly misapplied himself in law by having regard to a clearly ancillary or incidental activity and elevating it to the status of the dominant purpose for which the hospital has been established – Order of CIT set aside – directed to consider the application filed by petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Stay of demand – Charitable trust registered u/s 12A and 80G availing exemption u/s 11 upto AY 2008-09 – In AY 2009-10 demand imposed on ground that donations received cannot be regarded as voluntary contributions – complete stay of demand not granted – Held that:- Assessing Officers and Appellate Authorities, should act as quasi judicial authorities while disposing stay applications and not merely as tax gatherers of the Revenue. While they have a duty of protecting the interests of the Revenue, they need to mitigate the hardship to the Assessee and applications for stay must be considered objectively.

  In present case, assessee continues to have a registration u/s 12A, which has not been revoked. Further, assessee has highlighted the nature of its activities in support of the plea for stay and also explained its financial position. In our view, First Petitioner does have serious issues to be urged before the CIT (Appeals) in appeal. This is a case where complete stay of demand ought to have been granted – Therefore, complete stay of demand granted – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 170 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  TDS on rental -fifteen co-owners made investment in the building sharing the rental - executed a registered lease to the Bank paying monthly rent including all taxes - co-owners furnished indemnity bond indemnifying the Bank for the loss - the Bank stopped deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act - Bank has been paying rent to all the co-owners as per their respective shares by separate cheques - ITO initiated proceedings under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) as Bank was not justified in stopping the deduction of TDS - revenue stated that Section 194-I of the Act mentions that the tax has to be deducted at source on rentals paid to any person if it exceeds Rs.1,20,000/- in a year - the Bank contested that it had been paying rent to each co-owner separately by cheque and the individual amount paid to each co-owner being less than Rs.1,20,000/- in a year Held that:- If the rent which being paid to any person is less than Rs.1,20,000/- per annum there is no necessity of deducting tax at source - each of the co-owners has a definite share in the building - Section 26 of the Act provides that where property consisting of buildings or buildings and lands appurtenant thereto is owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite and ascertainable, such persons shall not in respect of such property be assessed as an association of persons –Appeal of Revenue failed

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 154 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  DTAC between India & Mauritius – Taxability of gains arising from transfer of shares and CCDs held by Mauritius company in Indian company – Z ltd (Mauritius company) along with Vltd (Indian Company) invested in shares and CCDs of S Ltd (Indian company) engaged in development of real estate project in India – prior to the mandatory conversion date of CCDs, V was given the call option to purchase particular shares and CCDs from Z, which was exercised by it – applicant contending CCDs not to be loan or advances and gains to be capital gains exempt from tax – withholding of taxes - Held that:- CCD creates or recognizes the existence of a debt, which remains to be so, till it is repaid or discharged. Further, it is observed that S Ltd being subsidiary of V ltd is though independent juridical person, S exercises no powers in managing its own affairs. It is de facto under the control and management of its parent company, V. It is V who is developing and running the real estate business of S, standing as a guarantor of the investment made by Z. V rather than S, acknowledges the CCDs as debts. The relationship between them as a parent and subsidiary is on paper: they are one and the same entity. Acknowledgment of debt with commitment to pay is factually upon V.

  Since, V and S are one and the same, hence the amount paid by V is clearly towards the debt that was taken by S from the Applicant. Gains arising on the sale of equity shares and CCDs are not exempt from capital gain tax in India under DTAC with Mauritius. The gains arising on the sale of CCDs being interest within the meaning of Section 2(28A) of the Act and Article 11 of the DTAC and are taxable as such. Tax is to be withhold on such payments – Decided against the applicant.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 153 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  DTAC between India & Mauritius - Buy back of shares proposed by A Ltd Co – major shareholders are 'A'(Mauritius company) - 25.06% shareholding, ‘A’(USA) - 48.87% shareholding and ‘A’ (Singapore) - 27.37% - offer accepted by only 'A'(M) both in year 2008 and 2010 – Revenue contended that tax is sought to be evaded in guise of buy back of shares – Held that:- It is significant that offer of buy-back was accepted only by ‘A’ (M) and not by 'A'(USA) or 'A' (Singapore) since only under the India-Mauritius DTAC, capital gains is totally not taxable in India.

  Had dividend being declared, company would have been obliged to pay tax on distribution of profits to shareholders. Instead, it allowed the reserves to grow and through proposed buy-back, considerable sums would be repatriated to ‘A (M) in Mauritius without the tax on the distributed profits being paid. Hence, we are satisfied that scheme of buy back of shares is a colorable device for avoiding tax on distributed profits as contemplated in Section 115-O.

  On our finding that the proposed buy-back is colourable, the distribution in question will satisfy the definition of dividend under the Act, Article 10 of the DTAC between India and Mauritius and consequently taxable as such. Also, applicant is required to withhold tax on the proposed remittance of the proceeds to ‘A’ (M).

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 152 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Delay in filing return - Public Charitable trust U/S 12A - also secured recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) - levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(e) for not filing the return of income within the due date as prescribed in section 139 - assessee in reply stated that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that recognition under section 80G would be a pre-requisite for filing the return of income – assessee contented that preoccupation on account of the trusties for meeting the obligations to secure recognition and this was the first year of operation of the trust thus the delay in filing the returns was not intentional – Held that:- On being appraised the correct provisions of law, return of income was filed immediately without any further delay there was no loss to the revenue as a result of late filing of the return and there was no ulterior motive to defraud the revenue - Penalty may be imposed under section 272A(2)(e) for failure, an attempt of deliberateness or deceptiveness, to furnish the return of income - Penalty cannot be levied under section 272A(2)(e) if there exists sufficient or reasonable cause for the default - "Reasonable cause' as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence - appeal filed by the assessee is allowed – in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Commencement of Business - Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal – AO disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year as the business of the assessee had not yet commenced –Assessee contented that the assessee has submitted the return for AY 1998-99 wherein the basic pattern of investments and operations were the same as in AY 2001-02 and the set up of the business has been accepted during the AY 1998-99, the AO thus cannot again go back and say that the business has not been set up during the year - Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal – Tax case Appeal by the Revenue – Held that:- if the assessee does first activity towards the attaining its main object, business shall be deemed to have been set up - the company entered into collaboration with to set up a joint venture company in which the respondent company had 26% equity share depicts that it is attaining its main objective as mentioned in MOA OF Company - AO is directed to treat all the expenses to be the revenue expenditure and allow set off of loss in accordance with law.Tax Case Appeal of revenue rejected.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 149 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Notice under section 153 - There was a search operation conducted at the business premises and there was seizure of some incriminating documents and the cases were notified with the DCIT - Thereafter, notice under section 153A has been issued consequent to the search action - Held that:- no merit in the ground this ground of the assessee is dismissed. - Notice issued u/s 153 upheld.

  Deduction under section 80IA - the assessee contended that he is not a contractor but a developer of infrastructure facility – revenue denied it as the assessee not developed any new infrastructure facility as required under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) had only taken up the renovation and modernization of the existing net work/infrastructure facilities - Held that:- in view of retrospective amendment, the most important question for examination on facts is whether the business agreement in question can be termed a works contract or not. If the answer is in affirmative, nothing else matters because the Explanation takes over. If not, the other nuances such a development/operation etc., and other specified conditions become relevant. - where an assessee incurred expenditure for purchase of materials himself and executes the development work i.e., carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for tax benefit under section 80 IA of the Act. In contrast to this, a assessee, who enters into a contract with another person including Government or an undertaking or enterprise referred to in Section 80 IA of the Act, for executing works contract, will not be eligible for the tax benefit under section 80 IA of the Act.

  Ownership of project - held that:- according to sub-clause (a), clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 80-IA the word “it” denotes the enterprise carrying on the business. The word “it” cannot be related to the infrastructure facility, particularly in view of the fact that infrastructure facility includes Rail system, Highway project, Water treatment system, Irrigation project, a Port, an Airport or an Inland port which cannot be owned by any one. Even otherwise, the word “it” is used to denote an enterprise. Therefore, there is no requirement that the assessee should have been the owner of the infrastructure facility.

  The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act if the contracts involves design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contract to deny the deduction u/s 80IA of Act. - Matter remanded back to AO.

  Sustaining/deleting of the expenses in the absence of bills and vouchers – Held that:- disallowance of expenses in these years also at 5% confirmed.

  Self made vouchers and bills in respect of purchase of sand – disallowed expenses by AO - there are chances of inflating the expenditure - Held that: - direct the assessing officer to disallow Rs.50 lakhs of the expenditure incurred by the assessee as it is not substantiated. Ground in assessee appeal partly allowed.

  Addition is made towards the difference between projected/provisional balance-sheet and the final balance-sheet. - The provisional balancesheet cannot be considered for determining the undisclosed income. However, as per disposition an amount of Rs.80 lakhs was agreed to be admitted as income, the same be considered as income on this count and no set off could be given towards workin- progress in any subsequent assessment year. This ground of assessee partly allowed.

  Seizure of cash - held that:- Either the assessee’s explanation is to be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole. They cannot pick and chose according to their convenience and make addition. In our o opinion, the addition made towards cash found at the premises of Sri K. Venkata Kutumba Rao, cannot be made either in the hands of the assessee’s company i.e. M/s GVPR Engineers Limited or in the hands of Sri Siva Shanker Reddy. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 148 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C - distinction between a 'null and void' order and an 'illegal or irregular' order - the order was christened as final order though the assessing authority was supposed to issue a draft order first inviting objections of the assessee against the adjustments proposed by the TPO - The assessee treated the said order as the final and filed appeal before the CIT(A) - on the mistake becoming apparent the AO issued a corrigendum stating that the first order to be treated as draft order - the corrigendum issued no legal force - Held that:- The argument that there is no provision in the Act to issue a corrigendum is not proper, as that power is always inherent with any statutory authority. In fact, a corrigendum is even appealable if it is prejudicial to an assessee. In the present case, the corrigendum issued by the assessing authority is not prejudicial. The Assessing Officer was only clarifying the situation. - Decided in favor of revenue.

  Higher Depreciation - Comparable companies - In Schedule 16 to its final accounts, which provides notes on accounts, the assessee has clarified the significant accounting policies followed by it in the matter of fixed assets and depreciation. It is stated therein that the assessee has provided depreciation on straight-line method. The rates have been adopted on the basis of technical estimates made of useful life of the assets. Accordingly, the assessee has provided depreciation at 33.33% in the case of plant and machinery including computer hardware and software. Furniture and fixtures were depreciated at the rate of 14.29% and motor vehicles at the rate of 20%. Depreciation was provided on office equipment at 20% and air-conditioners at 12.5%. – Held that:- The assessee is in fact not providing technical depreciation influenced by Income-tax Rules No force in the arguments advanced by the assessee company on the question of adjustment of the depreciation factor. - Decided in favor of revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 147 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  windmill installed by assessee - claiming depreciation on written down value (WDV) basis at 15% - the quantum deduction claimed was half of the amount, as the asset was put to use for a period of less than 180 days - the assessee found claimed 15% to be incorrect and filed a letter before the AO to rectify the rate to prescribed rate of 80% - The AO rejected the claim as the assessee had not in fact, exercised its option to claim depreciation either on WDV method or on SLM and so also has not applied the correct rate of depreciation provided in the rules – assessee filed merely a letter rectifying the said mistake and not the revised return - as the assessee had claimed depreciation for the earlier assessment year on straight-line method, the same method and rate were followed for the subsequent impugned assessment year - assessee contested the point as the assessment year 2006-07 was the first year in which the assessee had claimed depreciation on windmill, thus the quantum of depreciation, whether under SLM or under WDV method, will be the same – Held that:- depreciation was for the first year, the depreciation was claimed on the original cost even though at a wrong rate and in the impugned assessment year, the depreciation was claimed again at wrong rate but on WDV method. Therefore, it is very clear that the assessee has exercised its option for choosing the method of providing for depreciation as prescribed in the statute - the assessee asked for adopting the correct rate which is in fact, was only a prayer to rectify a mistake apparent on record and not making any fresh claim no revised return need to filed – appeal of revenue rejected

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 146 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of search and seizure - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were invalid for the reason that search warrant issued in Form 45 was invalid - It is also pertinent to note from the search records produced by the department that food bills raised against the customers by Khyber Hayath (sadhya) restaurant and Bimbis Fast Food show the same telephone number 382357, which intrinsically prove that all the concerns are owned and managed by same party, though under separate group names and concerns for the purpose of income tax benefits - During search it was also noticed that all the group concerns had common store in the same building. It is seen that simultaneously on 10.3.1999 itself the Managing Partner's house as well as another premises of the Bimbis functioning in another place at Ernakulam was also searched based on separate warrants - Held that: the search is carried out strictly by following the procedure contained under Rule 112 and by issuing warrant by giving the names of each and every assessee separately after describing all of them as "Bimbis Group of Concerns" - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to Tribunal to decide this case on merit

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Applicability of Section 35AB to expenditure incurred on preliminary survey resulting in agreement for transfer of technical know how – Assessee company entered into agreement with foreign company for conducting preliminary survey, subsequently entered into collaboration agreement with same foreign company for transfer of technical know-how – payment to be made in installments – A.Y. 1994-95 - Held that:-If a technical collaboration agreement were not to culminate as a result of the preliminary survey which was carried out for the assessee, obviously there would be no transfer of technical know-how. Therefore, CIT(A) and Tribunal have rightly held non-applicability of Section 35AB since amount was paid for preliminary survey and not for transfer of technical know-how. However allowable u/s 37.

  Further, though the payment for know-how was liable to be effected in installments, it was nonetheless a fixed sum which had been agreed between the parties and was, therefore, a lump sum within the meaning of Section 35AB – expenditure on know-how eligible u/s 35AB – Decided against the Revenue.

  Matter related to deletion of addition on valuation made by A.O, is restored back to Tribunal to decide afresh. Also, matter related to deduction of lease rent and depreciation on leased assets for computing eligible profits u/s 80HHC is restored back to A.O.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 128 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Premium paid on redemption of debentures – capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure - NCD issued in F.Y. 1984-85, liable to be redeemed in F.Y. 1991-92 at a premium of ₹ 15 lakhs - AY 1992-93 – Held that:-Amount paid towards premium is the liability which the assessee incurred for the purpose of its business in order to obtain the use of the funds for the period covered by the issue of NCD. Therefore in view of decision in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v CIT (1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) actual premium paid upon the redemption of the debentures would have to be classified as revenue expenditure – Decided in favor of assessee.

  Set off of short term capital loss against short term capital gain arising on sale of debentures and units - deduction u/s 80M without adjusting the loss on sale of shares – Held that:- Same has been decided in favor of assessee in view of decision in case of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2010 (7) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT)

  Deletion of addition by Tribunal in value of inventory and goods in process made by A.O – Held that:- Matter is restored back to Tribunal for deciding afresh on the finding that there was no independent application of mind by the Tribunal.

  ---

1 ....1516171819202122