1. [Contribution by P.C.Yadav, Advocate - Supreme Court of India]
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Vs. HOLOGRAM MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ITA No. 3383/Del/2009, Assessment Year: 2005-06, Dated: 9th September 2011, ITAT – Delhi
Income Tax - Section 2(24)(iia), 4, 28(iii) and - Whether once principle of mutuality is governed, voluntary contribution cannot be added as income of mutual association, under section2 (24)(iia) which is meant for association possessing 12A, whether provision of section 28(iii) are not applicable to the cases where an association could not provide any specific services to its members, whether provision of section 44A are applicable where there is deficit of income to meet the expenses of the mutual association. Held - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. SAGAR DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD VS ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITA NO.3179/AHD/2009, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007, DATED: JUNE 03, 2011, ITAT – AHEMDABAD
The position of law in relation to disallowance of administrative expenses is now clear. Such disallowance cannot be made prior to A.Y 2007-08 unless there is a direct nexus established by the AO. It has been held that rule 8D is not retrospective and would be applicable for and from A.Y 2007-08 and, therefore, it cannot be applied in A.Y 2006-07 which is before us and, therefore, calculation as per rule 8D cannot be done for disallowance of administrative expenses, unless of course a direct nexus is established.
(Please click here for judgment)
3. DCIT VS SUNDERDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, ITA NO.2051/AHD/2009, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07, DATED: JUNE 17, 2011 ITAT – AHEMDABAD
Whether provisions of Sec 50C are applicable only in the hands of seller, and hence the assessee who purchases the land is out of the purview of section 50C.
It is admitted fact that the assessee is a purchaser of the land in question. ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ITO Vs Venu Proteins Industries considering its earlier decision held that “the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the case of the purchaser. Departmental appeal was accordingly dismissed.” On consideration of the facts of the case, we find that there is no foundation in making the addition against the assessee. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the assessee made excess payment over and above the sale consideration shown in the registered documents. The AO merely on the basis of circle rate presumed higher value of the property. The above provisions were applicable in capital gains only. In the absence of any evidence or material on record to justify the findings of the AO, the learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts rightly deleted the addition. In the absence of any evidence or material before us and further that the findings of the learned CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A).
(Please click here for judgment)
Key of Success :
" Look for and find opportunities in places where others can not see"
New User? 
Subscribe Now