I.  Recent Updates:

1.    INDIAN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY  V. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) (3) 4 & ANR, WRIT PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2011, DATE : 09.11.2011, BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The assessee, based & assessed in Delhi, was allotted land by MMRDA at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, on lease for 80 years. The lease premium of Rs.88.52 crores was paid without deduction of tax at source. The ITO (TDS) Mumbai passed an order u/s 201 in which he held that the assessee had defaulted in not deducting TDS u/s 194-I on the lease premium. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the jurisdiction of the ITO (TDS) Mumbai. HELD upholding the plea: The assessee was assessed at New Delhi. Its PAN & TAN were allotted by the AO at New Delhi. All returns including the TDS returns were filed at New Delhi. Accordingly, there was complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the AO at Mumbai to proceed against the assessee.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.   S M SUNDARAM Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI, T.C.(A). No. 982 of 2004, DATE : 17.11.2011, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Whether the assessee, a partner of the firm, is entitled to deduction u/s 48(2) while computing the long term capital gain for which the firm has already claimed deduction u/s 48(2).

Under section 48(1), the deduction in respect of the full value of the consideration received or accrued regarding the expenditure incurred wholly, etc. and cost of acquisition of asset and the cost of improvement are granted. This deduction has admittedly been granted from the capital gain in the hands of the partnership firm. Sections 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act cannot be read separately. Unless an assessee gets benefit u/s 48(1), he cannot independently claim the right of deduction u/s 48(2). While Section 48(1) of the Act confers substantial right of deduction, what is done in Section 48(2) of the Act is granting further deduction. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, then the partner after obtaining his share as a long term capital gain from the firm, in the hands of which deduction has already been granted, will be again entitled to claim the rights that can never be the intent of the lawmakers; in the hands of the partner the amount of long term capital gain is entitled to apportionment under various heads. But, the question here is whether the deduction already claimed under Section 48(2) of the Act by the firm can be claimed by the partner once again in his hands in respect of his share of long term capital gains. The analogy made by Sections 80A(3) and 80T of the Act cannot be made applicable to the facts. After the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 came into effect from 1.4.1989 by which Section 80T of the Act came to be omitted, the taxing structure in respect of the firm and individual partner were different when compared to the legal position after the said date, namely 1.4.1989.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

II.  Today's Bottomline News : 

1. FEMA : Deferred Payment Protocols  (Click for detail)

2. Ministry steps in to reduce transfer pricing disputes  (Click for detail)

3. Sebi seeks regulator to monitor Auditors  (Click for detail)

4. No Tax on Selling House Jointly Owned With Spouse  (Click for detail)

5. SC : Banks, Hospitals can't run from residential plots in Noida  (Click for detail)
    

 

Key of Success :

"Target must be simple and challengeable. 
Thoughts must be pure and positive, 
then life will always be meaningful and beautiful"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

   
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal 
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
    
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator 
sidhjasso@yahoo.com  
   
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com