1.     CIT Vs M/s Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd–Supreme Court - Interest Tax Act                                                

     It has been held that there is no merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee, who is residuary non-banking companies, is covered under sub-clause (vi) of section 2(5B) of 1974 Act, in order to constitute a miscellaneous finance company, it has to be a company which carries on exclusively two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding sub-clauses (i) to (v). In other words, if there is a company which is investment company and also finance company, it can fall under section 2(5B)(vi). Therefore, a residuary non-banking company cannot fall within sub-clause (vi) as contended by the Department as the said sub-clause specifically says that a miscellaneous financial company should carry two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding sub-clauses. Moreover, unlike residuary non-banking companies, none of the companies mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) are empowered to accept deposits. In the circumstances, sub-clause (vi) did not cover residuary non-banking companies prior to 1.4.1993.

    (Click here for Judgment)

2.      Dana Corporation Vs Director Of Income Tax(International Taxation)- Mumbai- AAR-Income Tax -  Sections 45, 48, 92           

    Whether transfer of shares of Indian Subsidiaries of an American company without consideration in a scheme approved for bankruptcy proceedings in an American Court will attract capital gains - whether transfer pricing provisions can be applied in such transactions. The expression ‘income’ in Section 92 is not used in a sense wider than or different from its scope and connotation elsewhere in the Act. Section 92 obviously is not intended to bring in a new head of income or to charge the tax on income which is not otherwise chargeable under the Act. The interpretation sought to be placed by Revenue would amount to reading words into S.92.

(Click here for Judgment)

3.      ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kalchuri Corpn- Mumbai ITAT  Income tax - Sec 45                                         

      Assessee shows income from sale of plot of land - declares capital gains - AO treats the same as business income on the ground that the assessee firm was engaged in the business of construction and land development and any investment of this nature is an adventure in the nature of trade - CIT(A) allows the appeal - held, no infirmity in the CIT(A) order as the plot was purchased by the partners of the firm before they joined the firm from their own funds and no fund was borrowed for the same and even bank account was opened after the sale - it is a case of long-term investment - such income to be treated as capital gains - Revenue's appeal dismissed:

(Click here for Judgment)

4.     Invited online applications from the firms of Chartered accountants intending to be empanelled with the office of CAG of India. Last date being 10^th March 2010.

      (Click here for detailed information)

     If you have any query please e-mail at voiceofca@gmail.com