|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Aditya Medisales Ltd, ITA
No. 730 OF 2013, Date of order : September 2, 2013, High Court of
Gujarat.
Whether
in a case capital gain arose out of long-term capital asset was
invested in specified assets, exemption under section 54EC could not be
denied on account of fact that deeming fiction of short-term capital
gain was created under section 50.
Held Yes.
Capital gain arising of
long-term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to
be charged capital gains and exemption provided under section 54EC cannot be
denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is
created under section 50. In other words, legal fiction created under section
50 is though restricted to computation of capital gains, such deeming fiction
cannot restrict application of section 54EC which allows exemption of capital
gains, if assessee makes investment in the specified asset.
2. M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No.1580/Del/2010, Date of Order : 08.11.2013, ITAT-Delhi.
Whether
the ld.CIT(A) is correct in denying additional claims on the ground
that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return under
Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee did
neither claim those additional claims in the Original/Revised return nor
claimed before Assessing Officer but were claimed first time before the
ld.CIT(A).
Held No.
That the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the
decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.That in the case of Sam
Global Securities Ltd. (supra), the facts were that in the return of income,
the assessee had not claimed exemption under Section 10(35) on the dividend
income from the mutual funds and the loss on sale of units as business loss.
During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the revised computation of
income claiming exemption as well as business loss. However, the Assessing
Officer as well as CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim on the ground that the
assessee had not claimed it by filing of revised return under Section 139(5)
within the time limit.
(Please click here to view the Judgment).
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now