Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
24.12.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Thursday, December 24, 2015

  I. Headlines Today    

  1. Property can be registered below circle rate u/s 47A of Stamp Act, rules Delhi HC  (Click for detail)
  2. CBDT Press Release - Facilitating Taxpayers' electronic interface with the Department  (Click for detail)
  3. Lok Sabha passes arbitration amendment bill  (Click for detail)
  4. CBDT reaffirm its commitment to exempt MAT on foreign Companies  (Click for detail)
  5. Draft Guiding Principles for determination of Place of Effective Management (POEM) of a Company  (Click for detail)
  6. Government proposes tax exemptions on Esops, VC investments in startups   (Click for detail)

II.  Direct Taxes Case Laws: 

1.  Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, C.A. No. 514 of 2008, Date of Judgement: 05.11.2015, Supreme Court of India

Interest paid on borrowed sums further advanced to subsidiary company for purpose of facilitating the subsidiary in meeting out its working capital requirement is allowable as business expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.


The AO disallowed the interest paid on borrowed amount utilized for giving advance to its subsidiary company stating that that money borrowed was not used for business purposes. Whereas the assessee contented that the amount was advanced in compliance of the stipulations laid down by the financial institutions to which undertaking was given by the assessee for the purpose of providing additional margin to the subsidiary company to meet the working capital for meeting any cash loses.

Hon’ble Supreme Court applied the view taken by Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. 2002 (254) ITR 377 wherein the High Court had held that “once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case”.

Held that_the advance to subsidiary company became imperative as business expediency in view of the undertaking given to the financial institutions by the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed.

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  CIT Vs. Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal, I.T.A. No. 12 of 2015, Date of Decision: 04.11.2015, High Court of P & H

Whether to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is it required to utilize the sale proceeds of the original capital asset only for purchase of the new asset.
The AO denied the benefits of Section 54F for the reason that assessee not entirely sourced the amount invested in new assets from capital gain receipts and investment was made after taking loan from his employer. Assessee contented that due to non-availability of sales consideration at the time of investment he made investment out of loan amount.

Hon’ble High Court followed the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of ITO vs K.C. Gopalan (1999) 107 Taxman 591 (Ker.) wherein it was held that no provision is made by the statute that the assessee should utilize the amount which he obtained by way of sale consideration for the purpose of meeting the cost of new asset. Further, it was held that the law permits utilization of capital gain within the specified time, the assessee may use such funds for other purposes and may find resources from other source for investment in time. Appeal is dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)       

 Golden Rules:

  "Patience and Silence are powerful energies!
Patience makes us mentally strong,
Silence makes us emotionally strong"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now