1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Eastman Industries, Ludhiana - Punjab & Haryana High Court:

Eastmen Ind: Classification of Interest Income: Upheld ITAT order as to “The other question with regard to interest income is the income assessable under the head ‘Business Income’. The Assessing Officer did not consider the interest income as assessable under the head ‘Business Income’ instead of treating the same as assessable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ and accordingly, he denied the set-off of brought forward in respect of business losses. The Tribunal although, did not bank upon the contention of the assessee-respondent with regard to absence of money lending licence yet decided in favour of the assessee-respondent by recording a finding of fact that the assessee-respondent had the business of sale and purchase of mutual funds and money lending which was carried out as an organised activity over a period of time. Basing reliance on the order of the CIT (A), the Tribunal has concluded that there was no justification to disbelieve the conclusion drawn by the CIT (A). The argument of the revenue-appellant that the interest income falls under Section 56(2) of the Act and is assessable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ has also been rejected on the ground that the income assessable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ are of the nature which are otherwise not found to be assessable under any other heads of income. The interpretation of the Assessing Officer was not accepted..”

(Click here for judgment)

   

2. Paramjit Singh Versus Income Tax Officer - Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Held “There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to Section 92 or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration 'b' to Section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/ varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24.9.2002 (A.7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence.”

(Click here for judgment)

  

3. Commissioner of Income-tax (Cental), Ludhiana VERSUS Smt.Neena Jain c/o M/s Sweety Fabrics (P) Ltd. - Punjab & Haryana High Court:

Held “The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue that “any building would” fall within the definition of assets, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, because the word “any building” cannot possibly be read in isolation and it has harmoniously to be construed with the remaining portion of section 2(ea) of the Act, i.e. whether the building used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest house, because incomplete building, as in the present case of the assessee, cannot possibly either be used for residential or commercial purposes or for purposes of maintaining a guest house. Therefore, the word “building” has to be interpreted to mean a completely built structure having a roof, dwelling place, walls, doors, windows, electric and sanitary fittings etc. If one or more such components are lacking, then it cannot possibly be saith that the building is a complete structure for the purpose of section 2(ea) of the Act. A residential house is an unit, which is complete for habitation having the minimum bare required facilities. The Legislative intent underlying the amended provisions of section 2(ea) is clear and implicit that the legislature sought to bring within the ambit of this section all those buildings, which are completed and ready for use of residential, commercial or guest house, as the case may be, as incomplete structure cannot be put to any such use.”

(Click here for judgment)

  

  

What's New 

a.   Citizen's Charter (Click for detail)

b.   Filing of Return for the m/o May 2010  (Click for detail)  

c.   Service Tax Notification  (Click for detail) 

d.   DVAT Refund judgement  (Click for detail)

e.   Firms can’t keep assets secret:ICAI  (Click for detail) 

f.   Changes in Tax Deduction at Source Rules  (Click for detail)

 

"Motivation is when your dreams put on work clothes" 

Thanks for your valuable time 

"Voice of CA" 

    CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA
Member  Central Council - ICAI
Former Chairman - NIRC
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com 
   
   
CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes
Mob:9910272806, cakapilgoel@gmail.com 
 
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533, mukbansal80@gmail.com