(i) CIT, Bombay v. M/s Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992] 3 SCC 326
(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Alps Theatre AIR 1967 SC 1437 = [1967] 3 SCR 181
(iii) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited [2008] 9 SCC 622
Supreme Court’s own judgment in Mahindra Mills 243 ITR 56 which was sought to be nullified by above amendment can not help assesse in escalating profits because
(Para 18)”………….. Mahendra Mills was rendered while construing the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, whereas we are concerned with the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Act. Marked distinction between the two Chapters, as already held by this Court in the judgments noted above, is that not only Section 80-IA is a code by itself, it contains the provision for special deduction which is linked to profits. In contrast, Chapter IV of the Act, which allows depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is linked to investment. This Court has also made it clear that Section 80-IA of the Act not only contains substantive but procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected. The assessees/appellants want 100% deduction, without taking into consideration depreciation which they want to utilise in the subsequent years. This would be anathema to the scheme under Section 80-IA of the Act which is linked to profits and if the contention of the assessees is accepted, it would allow them to inflate the profits linked incentives provided under Section 80-IA of the Act which cannot be permitted………………”
Plastiblends India Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 137 (SC) 09-10-2017
Kalpetta Estates Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1990] 185 ITR 318
Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC)]
Synthite Industrial Ltd.[2017] 86 taxmann.com 138 (Kerala)
Where assessee whose business included real estate development purchased a rubber estate to utilize land for non-agricultural purpose and converted said land by cutting trees into housing plots, thus, brought asset in as stock-in-trade and sold those plots to several people for construction of villas, it was held that though property was once an agricultural land, its acquisition was for non-agricultural purposes, assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity in land and at relevant date, viz. date of sale, land had ceased to be an agricultural land, if that be so, assessee could not have claimed that income gained from sale of land was from sale of agricultural land entitling it to exemption from levy of capital gains
“……There is no dispute that even after the transfer of the said assets the assessee was still having balance in the block of assets of plant and machinery. Therefore the conditions as stipulated under Section 50 of the Act have not been satisfied so that any capital gain arising in the hand of the assessee can be deemed as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. ……….”
ITAT Banglore Bench in Makino India (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 139 (Bangalore – Trib.)
Para 6“…………..though the transfer of block of assets by the erstwhile entity Makino Asia Pte Limited had resulted STCG in the hand of the said entity but it exists only so long there was no merger/amalgamation. Once the merger / amalgamation was effected from 1.4.2002 (vide High Court order dated 19-12-2003)ail the transactions thereafter would be treated as transactions of the new entity post amalgamation. Thus when there is no extinguishment of block of assets of plant and machinery in the hand of the assessee then the transfer of assets in question after 1.4.2002 would not result in deemed capital gain under Section 50 of IT Act. “
Hence with drawl of income offered for STCG pre amalgamation through revised return was held valid by ITAT Banglore Bench in Makino India (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 139 (Bangalore – Trib.)
Issue of allowing TDS to assesses following cash system of accounting: As per section 198, sum deducted is deemed to be income received. Further Rule 37BA(3)(ii) allowing tds credit in the proportion of income assessable is applicable where income is received over number of years. However, if income is not received at all, Rule 37BA(3)(ii) shall not apply. Again Rule 37BA(i) allowing credit of TDS in the assessment year for which tax is assessable shall have effect of not at all allowing the credit of TDS if no amount is received. Hence Rule 37BA (3) is not applicable to cash system of accounting. Hence where assessee following cash system of accounting had reflected tds as income u/s 198 is entitled to claim full credit of tds in the year of deduction itself although corresponding income not reflected in the year of deduction. Held by ITAT Delhi in Chander Shekhar Aggarwal [2016] 67 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi – Trib.) pronounced on 11-01-2016 following Sadhbhav Engineering (Ahd Trib) and Vishakhapatnam Trib in Peddu Srinivasa Rao
CBDT instructs officers to verify cases of agriculture Income more than one crore in resposne a PIL matter pending before Hon’ble Patna High Court wherein concerns have been raised that a few assesses may be engaged in routing their unaccounted/illegal money in the garb of agricultural income thereby not only claiming exemptions on such income but also engaged in the money laundering activities. Also CBDT has advised that there may be data entry errors also resulting in income being reflected more than one crores. List of cases where agiculture income is more than one crore has been made available to officers. In Amritsar 26 cases have been reported [CBDT Letter dated 10-03-2016]
CBDT vide letter dated 11-03-2016 has reiterated that cases where tax has been deducted but not deposited by deductor, deductee assessee shall not be called upon to pay the demand because section 205 puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases. CBDT has issued similar instructions on 01-06-2015 also.