1.    The Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralIII. Vs. M/s.Ashok Commercial Enterprises - Bombay High Court

Ashok Commercial Entp: Notional Rent and Section 36(1)(iii) &Income Accrual: UpHeld In so far as Question 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in J.K.Investors in coming to the conclusion that the value of a notional advantage like notional interest on deposit cannot form part of actual rent… Following the judgment of the Division Bench in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), the Tribunal held that if the Assessee had funds available, both interest free and loaned, there would be a presumption that the investments were out of the interest free funds if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the outlay on the investment. In the present case, having regard to the finding of fact that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds, no substantial question of law would arise….. In the present case, the finding of the Tribunal is that until the fixed deposits attained maturity, the depositor did not have a legally enforceable right to receive the interest on a fixed deposit. The case of the assessee that the interest on the fixed deposit would accrue only on the date of maturity has been accepted. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not demonstrated to the Court any reasons as to why the principle laid down in E.D.Sassoon (supra) by the Supreme Court would not be attracted. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise..”

(Click here for judgment)

  

2.    The Commissioner of Income Tax5. Vs. M/s.Super & Stainless Hi Alloys 
     Ltd. - Bombay High Court

Super & Stainless: Concealment Penalty: Section 271(1)(c) : Held “There is also a finding that in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer took the view that the Assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation. The assessee accepted this view and filed a revised return withdrawing the depreciation claimed and  reducing the returned loss. On these facts, the finding of the Tribunal is that the explanation of the assessee was bona fide and that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed. No substantial question of law would arise.”

(Click here for judgment)

  

3. DCIT Vs Smt. Archana Satwalekar  - Karnatka High Court

Gift From Parents: Investment Deposit: Explanation of assessee accepted and addition held rightly deleted by CIT-A and ITAT.

(Click here for judgment)

  

What's New 

a.   FM to meet CMs today, GST rollout tops agenda  (Click for detail)

b.   Govt revises tax information exchange treaty with 65 countries  (Click for detail)

c.   Time limit extension in duty drawback rules a good move  (Click for detail)

d.   Penal provision of section 271(1)(c) would operate when there is a failure to disclose fully or truly all the particulars of income  (Click for detail)

e.   Royalty: Necessary ingredient for treating a payment as royalty is exclusiveness of right of a person over design or invention invented by him (Click for detail)

 

"Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting" 

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