1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-26 Vs. SHANKAR KRISHNAN, Income Tax Appeal No. 3516 of 2010, Dated: 6th September 2011, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Whether when the employer provides security deposit to the landlord in order to cater rent-free accommodation to the employee, notional interest is to be taken into consideration for computing fair rental value and thus the perquisite value is to be enhanced.
The contention of the revenue cannot be accepted in view of the express words used in Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as amended w.e.f. 1.4.01; in the present case, admittedly, the actual amount of lease rent paid by the employer is less than 10% of the salary of the Assessee and therefore, the decision of the ITAT cannot be faulted.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3741 OF 2010, DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2011, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the seized cash amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/and the amount of Rs.1.98 Crores deposited by the Assessee on 31st January, 2007 could be adjusted against the AdvanceTax liability while computing the interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Once the assessee offers to tax the undisclosed income including the amount seized during the search, then the liability to pay advance tax in respect of that amount arises even before the completion of the assessment. Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act does not prohibit utilization of the amount seized during the course of search towards the advance tax payable on the amount of undisclosed income declared during the course of search. In the present case, the assessee, prior to the last date for payment of last installment of advance tax, had in fact by his letter dated 14th March, 2007 requested the assessing officer to adjust the amounts towards the existing advance tax liability. Since advance tax liability is to be computed and paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act even before the completion of the assessment, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT in holding that in the facts of the present case, the amounts in question were liable to be adjusted towards the existing advance tax liability.
(Please click here for judgment)