|
III. Direct Tax Caselaw:
1. Venus Records & Tapes (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Mumbai, WT No. 72 (Mum.) of 2011, Dated: 23.01.2013, In the ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘WT’
Issue:
Whether notional depreciation i.e., neither claimed or allowed, could be taken into account or consideration for the purpose of computing the WDV of the relevant asset as at the year-end?
Summary:
As per rule 14 of schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, states that if, asset is depreciable asset then written-down value of each individual asset not the entire block of assets is to be considered for the value of such assets. Whereas, WDV of an asset is actual cost less depreciation actually allowed as per section 46(6)(b) of I.T Act, 1961. Therefore notional depreciation not allowable while computing value of assets for wealth tax.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. [ Contribution by CA Sanjeev Singhal and contributor is available at sanjeev.singhal@skaca.in ]
North
Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Employees Provident Fund Trust Vs. Union
of India, W.P. (C) No. 85 of 2011, Dated: 16.12.2011, High Court of
Gauhati
Where
revenue authorities rejected assessee's claim for refund of TDS merely
on the ground that return raising said claim was filed after expiry of
prescribed time period, view taken by authorities below was hyper
technical and, thus, matter was to be remanded back for disposal in
accordance with law.
In
the instant case, assessee a recognized trust invested its funds as per
instructions of Government of India in various financial institutions
and those institutions deducted tax at source from interest earned on
fixed deposits. In order to claim refund of TDS erroneously deducted by
the financial institutions, the assessee filed returns for relevant
assessment years. The AO held that since said returns had been filed
beyond the prescribed time-limit, they were to be treated as invalid
returns and, thus, application for the TDS refunds was to be rejected.
The CIT, however, refused to condone the delay in filing the returns on
the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship as envisaged under
section 119(2)(b). Contending that the stance taken by the respondent
authorities is contrary to law, the petitioner-trust filed this instant
writ petition for appropriate relief.
The HC held in favour of assessee as under:
1) The
assessee-trust was being deprived of a sum for which it could not be
blamed at all. It had no liability whatsoever to pay this amount to the
revenue. Yet, the revenue had refused to refund the same by taking some
hyper technical view of the matter;
2) No specific
or express provision is engrafted in this section to deal with refund
of TDS erroneously deducted when there is admittedly no due from the
assessee, but then, this is precisely the reason, for enacting section
119(1)(b). This is in the nature of an inherent power granted to the
CBDT to entrust any income-tax authority other than a Commissioner
(Appeals) to admit an application or claim for refund even belatedly and
dispose of the same in accordance with law;
3)
Section 119(1)(b) is the appropriate provision to deal with cases of
this nature. The assessee is entitled to condonation of the delay in
filing the claim for refund. Resultantly, the respondent authorities are
directed to process the application of the assessee trust for refund in
accordance with law.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now