Indian Newspaper Society vs. ITO (TDS) (Bombay)

The Petitioner is assessed at New Delhi. The PAN and TAN numbers are allotted to the Petitioner under Sections 139A and 203A by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. All returns including the TDS returns have been filed at New Delhi. The Assessing Officer recorded the submissions of the Petitioner which advert to these facts and the contention based thereon that the jurisdiction would lie with the Income Tax Authorities at New Delhi. This was brushed aside only on the ground that the assessment was getting time barred on 31 March 2011 and it was now not possible to transfer the case papers to the Authorities at New Delhi. This, with respect, could be no ground whatsoever valid in law to pass an order under Section 201/201(1A) when there was complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai. Evidently, on the facts and circumstances, it cannot be denied that jurisdiction would lie not with the Assessing Officer at Mumbai, but with the Competent Authority at New Delhi.

muzy

sahumintu

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K)

Refund of excise duty and grant of interest subsidy under the incentive scheme formulated by Central Government for public interest, namely, to accelerate industrial development, generate employment and create opportunities for self-employment in state of Jammu and Kashmir be treated as a capital receipt decided that incentives would become available to industrial units entitled thereto from the date of commencement of commercial production and the fact that these were not granted for creation of new assets were not the sole criteria for determining the nature of subsidy. The fact that such incentives were provided to achieve a public purpose should also be considered to determine the nature of subsidy and hence, such subsidy could not be construed as a production or operational incentive for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, the aforesaid incentives are capital receipts not liable to taxation.

Joseph George and Co. v. ITO (2010) 328 ITR 161 (Kerala)

An assessee engaged in letting out of rooms in a lodging house lodging is a business, however, letting out of building to the bank on long-term lease could not be treated as business and this will be treated as Income from House Property.

CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Delhi)

B. Raveendran Pillai v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 531 (Kerala)

Federal Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 319 (Kerala)

Echjay Forgings Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 286 (Bom.)

CIT v. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Delhi)

Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 331 ITR 317 (Mad.)

DIT v. DSD Noell GmbH (2011) 333 ITR 304 (Delhi)

CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.)

CIT v. Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 192 (Mad.)

Praveen Soni v. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 324 (Delhi)

CIT v. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H)

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 91 (Gauhati)

Joint CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC)

Madras Gymkhana Club v. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 348 (Mad.)

CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. & Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 239 (SC)

CIT v. Qatar Airways (2011) 332 ITR 253 (Bom.)

Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS) (2011) 332 ITR 255 (Kerala)

CIT v. Dynamic Vertical Software India P. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 0222 (Delhi)

CIT v. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 167 (P&H)

Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 243 (Delhi)[FB]

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI (2010) 329 ITR 126 (Bom.)

CIT v. Smt. Neena Jain (2011) 330 ITR 157 (P & H)

DIRECT TAX CASE LAWS

Refund of excise duty and grant of interest subsidy under the incentive scheme formulated by Central Government for public interest, namely, to accelerate industrial development, generate employment and create opportunities for self-employment in state of Jammu and Kashmir be treated as a capital receipt incentives would become available to industrial units entitled thereto from the date of commencement of commercial production and the fact that these were not granted for creation of new assets were not the sole criteria for determining the nature of subsidy. The fact that such incentives were provided to achieve a public purpose should also be considered to determine the nature of subsidy and hence, such subsidy could not be construed as a production or operational incentive for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, the aforesaid incentives are capital receipts not liable to taxation.

India against corruption

Anna Hazare is just taking rest and will meet today 2 people.

CA final Students should raise their voice against articleship duration

Dear Friends & Students,
I want to tell everybody from our arena of CA final Students u people shuold raise ur voice against articleship duration. I am not against articleship but I want to give some sugeestion to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India(ICAI) that they should consider on my views that institute should make 2 years of articleship under a chartered accountant firm and 1 year of compulsury industrial training under various industries/institutions/companies so that student can enable themselves for upperlevel and take guidence from public companies and my request with students they should ask for this propasal from institute and tell them this is good or not because if institute do this than students not going for thier articleship in regurarly they will punctual and will go for their articleship. My friends from Ca final students raise ur voice for ur conveinence.

Your's Friend,

Mintu Sahu
CA final Student