Back to top

Database NewsLetters

Taxsutra Database Bulletin: Rulings on Notional Rent, Tax Holidays, Sec.11 Exemption & More…

Issue No. 281 / Feb. 08th, 2024

Dear Professionals,

We are glad to present to you the 281st edition of ‘Taxsutra Database Bulletin’, where we keep you updated with current trends in the tax arena!

Taxsutra Database”, a true Income-tax research tool, is an archive of over 126230+  Income Tax Rulings reported across ITR, CTR, Taxman, ITD, TTJ, and ITR (Trib) and also includes recent ‘unreported handpicked rulings of SC, HC & ITAT’

Journals Current Status

ITR Vol. 458 Part 5

Dated: 13th Nov 2023

ITR-Trib Vol. 107 Issue 2

Dated: 09th Oct 2023

CTR Vol. 334 Issue 41

Dated: 27th Oct 2023

DTR Vol 224 Issue 78

Dated: 28th April 2023

TAXMAN Vol. 295 Part 2

Dated: 11th Nov 2023

ITD Vol.203 Issue 4

Dated: 22nd Nov 2023

TTJ Vol. 225 Issue 41

Dated: 24th Oct 2023

***********************

Key Takeaways from Handpicked Rulings

1) ITAT: Upholds revision over notional rent on builder’s unsold flats kept as stock-in-trade.  ITAT upholds revisionary order under Section 263 wherein addition under Section 23 of deemed rental income in the hands of Assessee in respect of certain unsold flats for AY 2018-19 was made; Relies on SC judgment in Chennai Properties wherein it was held that the charging provision of Section 22 specifically gives exemption from determination of actual value of the property which is used for the purpose of any business or provision carried on by the Assessee; Observes that there is no dispute that the Assessee had retained the unsold stock of flats as stock-in-trade in the capacity of builder and the said unsold stock of flats were used only for the purpose of business; Relies on coordinate bench ruling in Pegasus properties and observes that Section 22 carves an exception wherein the stock-in-trade was indirectly taxed under relevant AY after providing moratorium period of 2 years, accordingly, up to AY 2017-18, no addition could be made in respect of deemed rental income on unsold stocks lying as stock in trade since they are used for business purpose; Observes that the availability of moratorium of 2 years commences from the date of completion of flats and the in the present case, benefit under Section 22/23 cannot be claimed as it is applicable with effect from AY 2018-19 only i.e., completion certificates received AY 2018-19 onwards only and in the case of Assessee stock of real estate lying completed much before and Assessee must not have shown income on the same ……………Click here to read and download ITAT Order

2) HC: Expenditure for road-development by State Agricultural Marketing Board exempt under Sec.11 - HC holds that the expenditure incurred on construction of rural road and development of Mandis for achievement of objects prescribed under the Punjab Agricultural Product Market Act (‘Market Act’) is allowable for application of income under Section 11 and cannot be considered as repayment of loan taken from Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (‘Board’); HC observes that perusal of relevant provisions of Market Act clearly shows that it is not disputed that Assessee is applying its funds as per the statutory provision; Opines that on perusal of the payment details to Marketing Board by the Assessee shows that the excess payment of Rs.2.81 Cr was made towards development work which was also reflected in the balance sheet duly attested by CA; Notes that marketing committee is vested with the responsibility of effecting improvements besides ensuring that there is repair and maintenance of the existing infrastructure and the whole purpose is to provide better facilities in the rural areas and for the safety, health and convenience of persons who visit the market area for the sale of agricultural produce and for the general interest of the persons associated with the activities connected therewith; Holds that CIT(A) order was correct to the extent that the payment was made by the Assessee to the marketing board towards the statutory functions of application of money for the objects provided in the statute and it was not for repayment of any loan and accordingly, holds that both AO as well as ITAT wrongly came to the said conclusion regarding this aspect……………… Click here to read and download HC Judgment copy

***********************

***********************

3) HC: Allows Sec.10A deduction on deputation of technical manpower for onsite ‘software development’ -  HC holds reassessment initiated over allowability of deduction under Section 10A on income from deputation at the client’s place for software development which was already subject matter of assessment, thus, was mere change of opinion and liable to be set aside; Also holds that initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of assessment order for subsequent AY would amount to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible; Notes that profits derived from export of computer software is eligible for deduction under Section 10A which was claimed by the Assessee and at the same time profit derived from business of tendering technical services outside India are eligible for deduction under Section 80HHE; Observes that there has been declaration in Form 56F including the expenditure relating to providing technical services and once the said primary fact was disclosed, there was no further obligation on the assessee; Observes that initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of assessment order for AY 2008-09 would amount to borrowed satisfaction which is impermissible; Observes that Revenue’s reliance on Master Service Agreement, work contract and SCWs and Invoices cannot be sufficient itself to initiate proceedings for deduction under Section 10A in absence of reasonable nexus between technical services rendered and the STP which is necessary for an allowable deduction under Section 10A…………… Click here to read and download HC Judgment copy

4) HC: Absent third-party sales, Sec.80-IA deduction allowable on captive power unit.  HC holds that the benefit of Section 80-IA cannot be denied to eligible Assessee merely because power generated by its power undertaking was consumed by its other business and not sold to outsiders; Also holds that an eligible undertaking entitled to claim benefit under Section 80-IA shall equally be eligible to claim benefit under Section 80-IC even in case of captive undertaking; Relies on coordinate bench judgement in Assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 wherein it was held that the benefit under Section 80IA cannot be denied merely because the power generated was consumed at home or other business since it is well settled that a statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it; Notes that Section 80IA is a special provision conferring certain benefits on undertakings in certain special category states; Relies on SC judgement in Bajaj Tempo wherein in context of Section 15C of the 1922 Act it was held that claim of deduction under Section 15C is allowable on profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking established in a building taken on lease which was previously used for other business; During AY 2007-08, Assessee, an industrial undertaking claimed deduction of Rs.57.83 Lac under Section 80-IA in respect of its two captive power under takings which was denied by Revenue on the premise that the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA cannot be allowed since it had supplied power only to the paper undertakings belonging to the assessee itself and not to any outsider; CIT(A) allowed Assessee’s appeal which was also affirmed by ITAT..…………… Click here to read and download HC Judgment copy

***********************

***********************

5) HC: Treats final order violative of Sec.144C procedure as draft assessment order. HC sets aside assessment order passed without following the procedure under Section 144C in case of ‘eligible Assessee’; However, HC considers it as ‘draft assessment order’ in terms of Section 144C(5) on the premise that assessment order was passed within the extended timeline prescribed by notification under TOLA; Observes that merely because there is a procedural infraction in formatting the assessment order under Section 143(3) and demand notice will not ipso facto mean that assessment will have to abate on account of wrong formatting; Observes that the assessment order treated as draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) will not abate assessment until it is passed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153; Observes that on treating the final assessment order as draft assessment order, the Assessee have an option to approach DRP and assessment will have to be completed within one month under Section 144C(13)...………… Click here to read and download HC Judgment copy

***********************

About Taxsutra Database! 

Taxsutra Database”, a true Income-tax research tool, is an archive of over 125660+  Income Tax Rulings reported across ITR, CTR, Taxman, ITD, TTJ, and ITR (Trib) and also includes recent ‘unreported handpicked rulings of SC, HC & ITAT’. It is a completely integrated service with the following features:  

a) Comprehensive coverage of all latest cases powered by an advanced search engine to provide a seamless user experience;

b) Effective search results supported by active filters around Court Level, Location, Case Numbers and Citation;

c) Enhanced search feature, using the Unique Bulls Eye Application, by including "Exact words", "Any of these", "none of these" options.  

d) Judicial “forward & backward reference”  

The Taxsutra Database comes at a very special Annual Subscription price of 4200+ GST AND includes an annual license to the Taxsutra Library.  

T: +91 95952 18026 | C:+91 93200 54016 | E: sales@taxsutra.com

Copyright © TAXSUTRA. All Rights Reserved

View More
Rulings on Prosecution, Corporate-tax Deductions, Reassessment & More..

 

Issue No. 277 / Aug 9th, 2023

Dear Professionals,

We are glad to present to you the 277th edition of ‘Taxsutra Database Bulletin’, where we keep you updated with current trends in the tax arena!

***********************

Key Takeaways from Handpicked Rulings 

1) HC: Prosecution initiated during pendency of compounding application, no sustainable - HC quashes CIT’s order sanctioning the prosecution of Assessee due to failure to deposit the tax deducted at source in time; Also directs the CIT to consider the application for compounding of offences filed by the Assessee after payment of all legitimate dues to the Income Tax Department to meet the end of justice and dispose of in accordance with law; Remarks that “since the Petitioner has come forward to compound the offence and having regard to the amount due and the precarious situation which the Petitioner Company was put to at the time of deduction of the tax and non-payment, it is inevitable to quash the CIT’s order sanctioning the prosecution”; Assessee was subjected to TDS proceedings on account of failure to deduct tax at source in time; Subsequently, CIT passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the Assessee for criminal action in terms of Section 279(1) which lead to initiation of criminal proceedings before Judicial Magistrate; Consequently, the Assessee filed the compounding application which was not considered and pending for adjudication at the time of filing of writ petition………… Click here to read and download HC Judgment

2) HC: Satisfying '300 working days' criteria in previous year not essential for Sec. 80JJAA deduction - HC sets aside ITAT order wherein benefit of deduction under Section 80JJAA was denied to the Assessee on the premise that workmen were not employed for the period of 300 days in the previous year; Relies on coordinate bench ruling in Texas Industries wherein it was held that period of 300 days could be taken into consideration both in the previous year and succeeding year for the purpose of availing benefit under Section 80JJAA and it is not required for the workmen works for 300 days in the previous year relevant to assessment year; Refers to ITAT Bangalore ruling in Bosch wherein it was held that so long as the workman employed for 300 days, even if the said period is split into two blocks, i.e. the assessment year or financial year, Assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Section 80JJAA in the next assessment year and so on so forthwith for a period of three years; Observes that post-amendment to Section 80JJAA by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. Apr 1, 2017 threshold of 300 days has been reduced to 240 days in case of other industries and 150 days in case of apparel industries and the second proviso to the explanation of Section 80JJAA was inserted wherein it was clarified that where an employee fulfilled the number of days criteria in the succeeding year, such employee shall be deemed to have been employed in the succeeding year and the provisions of this section would apply accordingly; Assessee-Company engaged in the business of manufacturing apparel claimed deduction under Section 80JJAA on account of employment of workmen which was denied by the Revenue on the premise that the workmen were not employed for a period of 300 days in the previous year and therefore, benefit under Section 80JJAA cannot be provided; CIT(A) dismissed Assessee’s appeal which was also upheld by ITAT…………. Click here to read and download HC Judgment

3) HC: Sets aside reassessment over non-compliance of Sec.148A; Alternate remedy no bar - HC sets aside reassessment notice under Section 148 issued on or after April 1, 2021 without complying with the provisions of Section 148A along with the consequential assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 143(3); Remits back to Revenue with a direction to consider notice under Section 148 on June 09, 2021 to be a notice under Section 148A and proceed in complying with the provisions of Section 148A in view of SC ruling in Ashish Agarwal; Observes that undisputedly the provisions under Section 148 came to be amended w.e.f., Apr. 01, 2021, however, the notice under Section 148 was issued on June 09, 2021 after the amended provision under Section 148 came into force and insertion of Section 148A which mandates the Revenue to conduct an enquiry providing opportunity of hearing before passing an order under Section 148A(d) as well as notice under Section 148; Observes that no proceedings have been initiated under Section 148A before issuance of notice under Section 148 which was also not disputed by the Revenue in its pleadings; Observes that the Revenue was duty bound to comply with the provisions of Section 148A in its words and spirit as amended section provides safeguards to the Assessee, however, the procedure as provided under Section 148A is not followed by the Revenue before issuing notice under Section 148 and the entire proceedings initiated as well as assessment order …………. Click here to read and download HC Judgment

***********************

***********************

 4) HC: Warranty Provision against sophisticated goods carrying replacement obligation allowable under Sec.37 - HC holds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration wherein ITAT held that provision of warranty would be entitled to deduction under Section 37 relying upon SC ruling in Rotork Controls; Observes that the Assessee has not committed any error in making provisions inasmuch as large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and if the facts established show that defects existing in some of the items manufactured and sold then the provision made for warranty in respect of the army of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction under Section 37; With regard to provision of liquidated damages, HC observes that since the liquidated damages provided in the accounts are based on allowances/deduction allowed by the Assessee to its customer as a part of contract and this practice is being followed by the Assessee consistently, and such debits are based on actual deduction made by the customers, accordingly, they are ascertained expenditure and allowable under Section 37; Assessee, a Government of India undertaking, engaged in the business of manufacturing, project works field return of income declaring Nil income and claimed ‘Provision for Warranty Expenses’ as business expenditure under Section 37 being contractual obligations for replacement of spare parts for certain specified period at free of cost which was disallowed by the Revenue under assessment under Section 143(3) along with disallowance of Provision for liquidated damages of Rs. 1178.42 Cr; CIT(A) allowed Assessee’s appeal; On appeal, ITAT dismissed Assessee’s appeal…………….Click here to read and download HC Judgment

5) ITAT: Addition based on Sec.132(4) statement in absence of incriminating material invalid - ITAT upholds CIT(A) order wherein addition made solely on the basis of the statement given during the course of search under Section 132(4) although subsequently retracted in absence of any incriminating material was deleted; Refers to CBDT Instruction dt. Mar 10, 2003 and CBDT Circular dt. Dec 18, 2014 wherein emphasis was supplied on gathering of evidences during the course of search and survey and to strictly avoid obtaining admission of undisclosed income under coercion and influence; Relies on ITAT Indore ruling in Ultimate Builders as well as Gujarat HC ruling in Mangarlal Chokshi wherein it was held that merely making addition only on the basis of the statement given during the course of search and without referring to any incriminating material is not justified and such addition cannot stand in the eyes of law; Rejects Revenue’s contention on admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A filed by the Assessee without granting any opportunity to its and observes that the subject addition evidences so referred to by Revenue are not related to the addition made on the basis of the statement given during the course of search under Section 132(4); Assessee was subjected to search assessment under Section 153A read with Section 153D wherein Assessee gave a statement on oath under Section 132(4) accepting unaccounted income of Rs. 2.20 Cr from AY 2016-17 although subsequently retracted stating that the disclosure ………………Click here to read and download ITAT Order

***********************

***********************

Expert Column 

CBDT issued Circular No. 19/2019 that mandates a computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in all communications issued by the income-tax authorities on or after Oct 1, 2019 for ensuring accountability in official dealings. CBDT also laid down certain exceptions whereby manual communication without a DIN could be issued. Recently, Jharkhand High Court took a view that the delay of one day in generation of DIN was not fatal to the assessment which is contrary to Delhi High Court's judgment on this issue.

 Mr. Deepak Chopra (Senior Partner, AZB & Partners) and Mr. Pulkit Pandey (Associate) critically analyse the Jharkhand High Court judgment. They apprise that while dealing with the issues of limitation and communication of the order for the purposes of quoting the DIN, the High Court made a distinction between the terms, ‘making of an order’, ‘issue of an order’, ‘uploading of an order’ and ‘communication of an order’, etc., which were often used interchangeably. They highlight that the High Court held that quoting of DIN is mandatory only for communication of an order and as Section 153(3) deals with ‘making of an order’ and not its communication, the generation of DIN would not have a bearing on the said limitation. 

The authors underscore that the High Court put a heavy emphasis on the word ‘may’ as contained in Section 153(3) in order to treat the limitation therein, as recommendatory in nature. They are of the view that such interpretation would render the objective of setting limitations nugatory and would make the provisions otiose. 

Click here to read the article “Jharkhand HC on DIN Mandate -  Slip Between the Cup and the Lip”

***********************

About Taxsutra Database!

Taxsutra Database”, a true Income-tax research tool, is an archive of over 123545+  Income Tax Rulings reported across ITR, CTR, Taxman, DTR, ITD, TTJ, and ITR (Trib) and also includes recent ‘unreported handpicked rulings of SC, HC & ITAT’. It is a completely integrated service with the following features:   

a) Comprehensive coverage of all latest cases powered by an advanced search engine to provide a seamless user experience;

b) Effective search results supported by active filters around Court Level, Location, Case Numbers and Citation;

c) Enhanced search feature, using the Unique Bulls Eye Application, by including "Exact words", "Any of these", "none of these" options.  

d) Judicial “forward & backward reference”  

The Taxsutra Database comes at a very special Annual Subscription price of 4200+ GST AND includes an annual license to the Taxsutra Library.  

 

View More
Rulings in prohibited expenditure, cash receipts, prosecution settlement & more...

 

Click here to read Taxsutra Database Bulletin: Issue No. 276 / July 5th, 2023

View More
Expert's View on PMLA Notification; Rulings on Scope of Review, Capital Receipt & More...

 

Click here to read Taxsutra Database Bulletin: Issue No. 275 / May 15th, 2023

View More
Rulings on Additional Evidence, NRs Taxability on Turnkey Project, Sec.69A Addition & More...

 

Click here to read Taxsutra Database Bulletin: Issue No. 274 / April 18th, 2023

View More
Displaying news letters 1 - 5 of 134 in total