KSCCA mark Karnataka State Chartered Accountants Association
About us  |  Subjects  |  News  |  Events  |  Articles  |  Resources  |  Forums  |  Guestbook  |   
 
News Letter
  January 2004
  February 2004
  Mar - Apr 2004
  May 2004
  June 2004
  July 2004
  August 2004
  September 2004
  October 2004
  November 2004
  December 2004
  January 2005
  February 2005
  March 2005
  April 2005
  May 2005
  June 2005
  July 2005
  August 2005
  September 2005
  October 2005
  November 2005
  December 2005
  January 2006
  February 2006
  March 2006
  April 2006
  May 2006
  June 2006
  July 2006
  August 2006
Accounts
Auditing
Budget
Central Excise
CRM/ECRM And PRM
Tax
  Direct
  Income
  Indirect
  Sales
  Service
  Value Added Tax (VAT)
Empowerment for Excellence
Finance Act
General
Humour
Insurance
President's Message
Queries
Thus spoke Chanakya
Transfer Pricing

News Bulletin >> Jan 2004

RECENT DECISIONS ON INCOME TAX

Compilation by
K.S. Satish
Chartered Accountant, Mysore

NOT INCOME

Interest on arrears of salary awarded by the court is not assessable as income since the grant of interest and rate of interest were in the absolute discretion of the court opined the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. B. Rai (2003) 264 ITR 617 (P & H).

CHARITABLE TRUST

The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Institute of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom) has taken the view that the assessee, a charitable trust was entitled to depreciation on assets even though the cost of assets was fully allowed in the earlier year as application of income under section 11.

NOT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE

In CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Jaiswal (2003) 264 ITR 358 (MP) where the agricultural land inherited by the assessee was compulsorily acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority, the assessee accepted developed plots from the Authority instead of cash compensation and sold some of the plots during the relevant previous year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade.

BUSINESS INCOME

Where the assessee, a co-operative society constructed a building complex having shops and godowns for its members and let out portions of the building to banks and Post & Telegraph Department for running a post office with a view to provide amenities to its members for promotion of their trade, the rent received from the banks and Post & Telegraph Department is assessable as business income ruled the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Surat Textile Market Co-operative Shops & Warehouse Society Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 289 (Guj).

BUSINESS EXPENDITURE

The Bombay High Court has in CIT v. B.G. Shirke & Co. (2003) 264 ITR 83 (Bom) opined that contributions made by the assessee-firm to the trusts created by it for the welfare of its employees were deductible under section 37.

SECTION 68

Where the identity of the shareholders is not established and their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction are not proved, the amount of share capital is assessable under section 68 ruled the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 623 (Cal).

CHAPTER VI-A

The Karnataka High Court has in A.S. Mani v. UOI & Ors. (2003) 264 ITR 5 (Kar) taken the view that it is not necessary for the assessee to be physically outside India and physically render service outside India for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-RRA.

CIRCULARS

Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are binding on the Department and the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the Circulars even on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act held the Madras High Court in CIT v. Investment Trust of India Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 506 (Mad).

PENALTY

In Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2003) 264 ITR 447 (Bom), the Bombay High Court has held that penalty under section 271B cannot be levied for the delay in obtaining the audit report for the assessment year 1993-94 when the delay was due to non-completion of accounts for the earlier assessment year namely, assessment year 1992-93.

PROSECUTION

Where the Assessing Officer filed a complaint against the directors of a company charging them under section 276B read with section 278B for failure to deposit tax deducted at source by the company from payments to contractors with the Central Government but there was no material therein to prima facie show that they were in charge of the affairs of the company and responsible for the conduct of its day-to-day affairs, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company held the Bombay High Court in Homi Phiroze Ranina & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2003) 263 ITR 636 (Bom).

Note : KSCAA and the contributors to the news bulletin do not accept any responsibility for the views expressed in the articles/opinions. Readers/users are requested to consult the official text of the relevant publications, Circulars, Notifications, Acts and Judicial pronouncements cited in the news bulletin.

 

 

Contents
 
Contact us Classifieds Sitemap FAQ
© 2006 Karnataka State Chartered Accountant Association