|
II. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. M/s AREVA T & D India Limited, Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1184, 1185 and 2694 of 2006, DATED: 03.09.2012, High Court of Madras
Assessee is entitled to depreciation u/s 32 of IT Act, on amount paid for acquiring the tenancy rights.
Tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC) (CIT Vs. D.P.Sandhu Bros Chembur P. Ltd.) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange of one property for the other. Hence, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the assessee, thereby rejecting the Revenue's contention raised in all these Tax Cases. Consequently, we hold that the assessee is entitled to depreciation.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad, Tax Appeal No. 1182 of 201, Date: 01/10/2012, High Court of Gujarat
No Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) shall be permissible, once the assessee obtained Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors .
Once the assessee obtained Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors whose contents are not disputed or whose genuineness is not doubted then the assessee is not liable to deduct tax from the payments made to sub-contractors. Once assessee is not liable to deduct tax u/s 194C then disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made. The assessee’s breach of the requirement to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time may attract other consequences but cannot result in a s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now