Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
07.02.2011 - Recent Updates as on 07.02.2011
Monday, February 7, 2011

1.      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI – II Vs. MAHINDRA FINLEASE PVT. LTD., INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 981 OF 2008, DATE OF PRONOUNCED : 31.01.2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI

“Whether the protective assessment can be framed in the proceedings under Section 158BC/158BD?” We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that similar issue relating to protective assessment made u/s 158BD had arisen for consideration before the Madras Bench of ITAT in the case of L. Saroja Vs. ACIT – 76 ITD 344 wherein it was held by the Tribunal that protective assessment qua the person sought to be covered u/s 158BD cannot be sustained.. Since no contrary decision of Tribunal or any High Court on this issue has been brought to our notice by the learned DR, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal in the case of L. Saroja (supra) and Smt. Farzana Farooq Desai (supra) and uphold the impugned orders of the learned CIT (A) deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 on protective basis in the assessments completed u/s 158BC/158BD.”

(Please click here for judgment)

   

2.      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Vs. OASIS HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD., INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2093 OF 2010, DATE OF PRONOUNCED : 31.01.2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI

The issue relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained share application money. The plain language of Section 68 of the Act suggests that when the assessee is to give satisfactory explanation, burden of proof is on the assessee to provide nature and source of those receipts. There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue. Equally, where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability and complexity of the assessed it should not be harassed by the Revenues insistence that it should prove the negative. In the case of a public issue, the Company concerned cannot be expected to know every detail pertaining to the identity as well as financial worth of each of its subscribers. But if the AO fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings, he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicions and treat the subscribed capital as the undisclosed income of the Company.”

(Please click here for judgment)

    

3.      ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATION CO. LTD. Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2003, DATE OF PRONOUNCED : 31.01.2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Whether any income could be deemed to have accrued to the appellant in India within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. He held that although it could be said that there was some kind of territorial nexus of the beam which was downlinked from the appellant’s satellite with India, the proprietary rights in the nature of copyright, etc. in the down linked beam did not belong to the appellant but belonged to the T.V. channels.

(Please click here for judgment)

   

 

What's New

         

"Hope is a waking dream"
       
Thanks for your valuable time 
  

"Voice of CA"

  

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA
Member  Central Council - ICAI
Former Chairman - NIRC
Mob : 9811080342,
agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com  
    
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533,
mukbansal80@gmail.com 

  

 

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now