Category: Income Tax

Posted on

A proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) The Division Bench of Delhi High Court followed the aforesaid decision in the case of CIT v. Rajinder Kumar [2014] 362 ITR 241/220 Taxman 3/[2013] 39 taxmann.com 126 (Delhi) and held that the amendment in the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective in nature.

Posted on

Supreme Court Decisions on Income diverted at source before it accures to the assessee cannot be regarded as an income

1.    CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367 (SC),

2.       Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 624 (SC),

3.        Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1/56 Taxman 49 (SC),

4.       CIT v. Sahara Investment India Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 641/136 Taxman 61 (SC),

5.       CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC),

6.       Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 617/104 Taxman 97 (SC),

CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10/126 Taxman 161 (SC)

Posted on

Renting out of counters to counter holders executing the sale and purchase of goods and provision of cash collection counters, staff facility is business Income

Renting out of counters to counter holders executing the sale and purchase of goods and provided facility of collection counter of sales proceeds manned by its own staff, packaging and delivery facility using its own staff, further counters were furnished by assesse, is  not a case of exploiting the property simpliciter, but a case where the objective of earning profits by conducting of the department store was merely facilitated by the use of the property. Hence assessable as business income and not income from house property.

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain[2017] 86 taxmann.com 211 (Mumbai – Trib.) SEPTEMBER  27, 2017

Posted on

Mere fact that one donation received by it may be bogus would not establish that activities of trust were not genuine or that activities were not being carried out in accordance with objects of trust, just as one swallow does not make the summer

However, if there were multiple bogus transactions of similar kind, it would lead to conclusion that activities of trust were not genuine and, in such a case, registration granted to it could be cancelled under section 12AA(3)

 

Jagannath Gupta Family Trust[2017] 86 taxmann.com 104 (Calcutta) SEPTEMBER  18, 2017

Posted on

Deduction under section 54B is allowable on purchase of agricultural lands not through registered sale deed and another through an agreement to sell

Anil Bishnoi[2017] 86 taxmann.com 217 (Chandigarh – Trib.) SEPTEMBER  27, 2017

If someone has sold a property, consequently the other person has purchased the said property. If the transfer of property is complete as per the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act, the assessee is made labile to pay tax on the capital gains earned by him, on the same analogy, the transfer is also complete in favour of the purchaser also. The provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner to say that transfer vis-a-vis selling is complete but vis-a-vis purchase is not complete in respect of same transaction. In view of this, the word ‘Purchase’ cannot be interpreted and detached from the definition of word ‘transfer’ as given u/s 2(47) of the Act. When the transfer takes effect as per the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act, if a liability to pay tax arise in the case of the seller, the consequent right to get deduction on the purchase of property accrues in favour of the purchaser, if he otherwise is so eligible to claim it as per the relevant provisions of the Act.

For the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, the registration of sale deed is not necessary. It is enough if the assessee has paid the consideration, acquired the possession with full rights and has fulfilled other requirements of the provisions of the Act:-

1. Sh. Sanjeev Lal etc. v. CIT 269 CTR 001(SC) 2014
2. CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 12 CTR 0423 (SC)
3. CIT v. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 0282 (Madras)
4. CIT v. Ram Gopal [2015] 372 ITR 498 (Delhi)
5. Balraj v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi)
6. CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727 (Delhi)
7. CIT v. Dr Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804 (Bom.)
8. CIT v Mrs. Shahzada Begum, [1988]73 CTR 0229 (A.P.)
9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. Department of Income Tax, ITA No. 27 (Asr.)/2015
Posted on

Where assessee-trust’s hospital availed services of some doctors, since there did not exist employer-employee relationship between parties, assessee was justified in deducting tax at source under section 194J while making payments of professional fee to doctors

Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital[2017] 86 taxmann.com 107 (Mumbai – Trib.) SEPTEMBER  8, 2017

Chandigarh ITAT in the case of IVY Health Life Sciences where the facts are almost identical to the case of the appellant, in that case also, the professional doctors were paid on the basis of fees received from the patients. Their remuneration was not fixed and they were also free to render services to the patients as they considered appropriate in terms of time or duration. Such professional doctors were also not entitled to PF, ESI, LTC and any other perquisites or retirement benefits. In these circumstances therefore, it was held by Hon’ble Chandigarh ITAT that there was no employer and employee relationship between the assessee and the professional doctors. Hence the assessee had rightly deducted tax at source under section 194J from the payments made to the professional doctors