Details not found.
Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay v. CIT  129 Taxman
The Development Agreement does not transfer the interest in the property to
the developer in general law and, therefore, section 2(47)(v) had been enacted.
In such cases, even entering into such a contract could amount to transfer from
the date of the agreement itself.
In numerous matters the Assessing Officer and the department generally
proceed on the basis of substantial compliance of the contract. Such
interpretation would result in anomaly because what is substantial compliance
would differ from officer to officer.
Jasbir Singh Sarkaria, In re  164 Taxman 108 (AAR - New Delhi)
Once it is held that transaction of nature referred to in sub-clause (v) of
section 2(47) has taken place on a particular date, actual date of taking
physical possession need not be probed into. It is enough if transferee has, by
virtue of that transaction, a right to enter upon and exercise acts of
Dnyaneshwar N. Mulik v. Asstt. CIT 152
Taxman 25 (Mag.) (Pune)
Transfer did take place within meaning of Section 2(47)(v) where assessee had
entered into an agreement with builder for development of land, signed a general
power of attorney in favour of builder and gave possession of property to
Ms. K. Radhika v. DY. CIT  13 taxmann.com 92/47 SOT 180
Transfer under Section 2(47)(v) triggers only when there is willingness of
transferee (i.e., developer) to perform its obligations as required by Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
This provision was creating practical difficulties for real estate developers
as they were forced to pay tax on notional income for unsold flats. Now some
relief is proposed for the real estate developers who are holding residential
units as stock-in-trade. The annual value of such house property (if not let out
during the year) shall be deemed to be nil for a period of up to one year from
the end of the financial year in which certificate of completion of construction
is obtained from the competent authority.
CIT v. Ansal Housing & Construction  72 taxmann.com
254/241 Taxman 418 (Delhi)
Assessee, engaged in business of construction of house property, would be
liable to pay tax on ALV of flats lying unsold during year.
CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises  58 taxmann.com 111/232
Taxman 452 (Bom.)
Rental income received from unsold portion of property constructed by
assessee, a real estate developer, was assessable as income from house property.
Nanded District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  57 taxmann.com 422/68 SOT 329 (URO) (Pune - Trib.)
Asstt. CIT v. Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd.  57
taxmann.com 183 (Pune - Trib.)
Asstt. CIT v. Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd.  32
taxmann.com 229 (Pune - Trib.)
Pr. CIT v. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd.  72
taxmann.com 117/242 Taxman 60 (Guj.)
In all these cases revenue contended that provisions of section 43D which
provide that interest income relatable to NPAs shall be charged to tax in year
in which it is credited or received by assessee, whichever is earlier, was not
applicable to assessee, since assessee was not a scheduled bank or any other
entity prescribed in section 43D.
However, it was held that revenue was not justified in holding that
provisions of section 43Dwere not applicable to assessee, since assessee was not
a scheduled bank or any other entity prescribed in section 43D.
CIT v. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd.  69
taxmann.com 394/240 Taxman 514 (Kar.)
Since carbon credit was generated out of environmental concerns and it was
not having character of trading activity, receipt from sale of carbon credit was
capital receipt and not business income.
CIT v. My Home Power Ltd.  46 taxmann.com 314/225 Taxman
8 (Mag.) (AP).
The Tribunal had rightly held carbon credit not being an offshoot of business
but an offshoot of environmental concern, amount received on their transfer had
no element of profit or gain, thus, profit that arose on its transfer was not
DY. CIT v. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.  68
taxmann.com 237/ 162 ITD 18 (Ahm. - Trib.)
Amount received on transfer of Carbon credits would be capital receipt as
same did not have an element of profit or gain.
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT  47 taxmann.com 416/149
ITD 756 (Cochin - Trib.)
Income on sale of carbon credit which is admittedly a benefit arising out of
business of assessee, would fall within definition of 'income' under section
2(24)(vd) and, thus, it is chargeable to tax.
It has been proposed that this provision shall cease to apply in respect of
returns furnished for the assessment year 2017-18 and onwards. Resultantly, it
would be necessary to process a return of income before expiry of one year from
the end of the financial year in which the return was made. This amendment is
made with a view to address the grievance of assessees that refunds were getting
delayed even in genuine cases where cases were selected routinely for scrutiny
assessment. To address the concern of recovery of revenue in doubtful cases, the
Finance Bill has proposed to insert a new Section 241A. It authorizes the
Assessing Officer to withhold the payment of refund amount, if such grant of
refund may adversely affect the recovery of revenue.
Aegis Ltd. v. Union of India  77 taxmann.com 5 (Bom.)
Where assessee having challenged constitutional validity of section 143(1D),
submitted in writ proceedings that it would not resort to its constitutional
challenge in case court issued directions for processing of its refund
application, departmental authorities were to be directed to process assessee's
application as expeditiously as possible.
Group M. Media India (P.) Ltd. v. Union Of India  77
taxmann.com 106 (Bom.)
Even where return was filed and scrutiny notice was issued, return should be
processed and refund be granted at earliest; same is not to be lingered on till
expiry of one year from end of financial year in which return is furnished.
Tata Tele-services Ltd. v. CBDT  69 taxmann.com 226/240
Taxman 182 (Delhi)
Deputy Commissioner denied refund to assessee for reason that case was
pending scrutiny and that in light of section 143(ID) and Instructions of CBDT,
refund could not be processed for said assessment years.
The Delhi HC held that real effect of Instruction No. 1 of 2015, dated
13-1-2015 issued by CBDT in purported exercise of its power under section 119
being relied upon by Department to deny refund, was to curtail discretion of AO
by 'preventing' him from processing return, where notice had been issued to
assessee under section 143(2).
Further, it added that impugned instruction issued by CBDT could not have
been relied upon by department to deny refunds to assessee in whose cases
notices for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) had been issued.
Therefore, it has been proposed that, where refund is due to a deductor, he
shall be entitled to receive simple interest on such refund, calculated at the
rate of 0.5% per month or part of the month, for the period beginning from the
date on which claim is made and ending on the date on which refund is granted.
In case of an appeal, the interest shall be payable for the period beginning
from the date on which tax is paid and ending on the date on which refund is
Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  8 SOT 417 (Mum.)
The deductor was not eligible for interest on refund of excess TDS as
interest under section 244A could be allowed only in those cases where notice of
demand had been issued under section 156 and tax was paid in excess of such
ITO v. Ajay Shantilal Lalwani  23 taxmann.com 143/52 SOT
101 (URO) (Pune)
Where assessee purchases shares in physical form and transfers them to D-mat
account for selling them, section 10(38) exemption cannot be denied on ground
that there was delay in dematerialisation
ITO v. Smt. Aarti Mittal  41 taxmann.com 118/149 ITD 728
(Hyd. - Trib.)
Where assessee having purchased shares in physical form, converted them in
D-Mat form and thereupon sale of those shares was carried out through recognized
stock exchange after paying securities transaction tax, said transactions were
to be regarded as genuine in nature and, therefore, assessee's claim for
exemption under section 10(38) was to be allowed.
Amserve Consultants Ltd v. ADIT  72 taxmann.com 204
(Delhi - Trib.)
The Delhi ITAT held that the transaction was tax neutral because payee and
payer, both were assessed at the maximum marginal rate. Under these
circumstances it had to be held on facts that this payment was not made with an
intention to evade tax.
Pr. CIT v. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd.  60
taxmann.com 483/233 Taxman 532 (Guj.)
The Hon'ble Gujarat HC held that where assessee-company as well as assessee's
parent company, both were assessed to tax at maximum marginal rate, it could not
be said that service charge was paid by assessee-company to its parent company
at unreasonable rate to evade tax.
CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd.  219 CTR
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where revenue was not in a position
to point out how assessee evaded payment of tax by alleged payment of higher
commission to its sister concern, since sister concern was also paying tax at
higher rate, disallowance of alleged excess commission paid to sister concern
was not justified.
Such reasons, however, may have to be placed before the Court in the event
belief of the authorized official is challenged, in which event the court would
be entitled to examine the relevance of the reasons for the formation of the
DGIT (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. 
57 taxmann.com 292/232 Taxman 131 (SC)
Though necessity of recording of reasons before issuing warrant of
authorisation, has been repeatedly stressed upon so as to ensure accountability
and responsibility in decision making process, this, by itself, would not confer
on assessee a right of inspection of documents or to a communication of reasons
for belief at stage of issuing of authorization.
Parma Ram Bhakar v. Dy. CIT  39 taxmann.com 119/147 ITD
265 (Jodhpur - Trib.)
Since authorization to conduct search based on reason under section 132(1)
did not exist, search became invalid.
In order to remove this ambiguity, it is proposed to clarify that the
deduction shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee and the
deduction under section 10AA in no case shall exceed the said total income.
CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.  77 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
After amendment to section 10A by the Finance Act 2000 with effect from
1-4-2001, said section has become a provision for deduction but stage of
deduction would be while computing gross total income of eligible undertaking
under Chapter IV of Act and not at stage of computation of total income under
Chapter VI of Act.
PMP Auto Components (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  50 taxmann.com
272/66 SOT 42 (URO) (Mum. - Trib.)
The TPO treated share application money in overseas subsidiary as an
international transaction and added notional interest income by re-chracterizing
the share application money as a loan.
The DRP rightly held that the transfer pricing adjustment on account of the
additional capital infusion had already been made and approved. Further, it
added that the transfer pricing provisions in the Act do not envisage the
concept of secondary transfer pricing adjustment' and as a concept' secondary
adjustment' was alien to the Indian transfer pricing law.
Section 12A is proposed to be amended to provide that any trust or
institution availing benefit of tax exemption under section 11 should inform the
CIT within 30 days if there is any change in the object clause which does not
conform to the conditions of the registration
Further, return filing is proposed to be made mandatory for the trust
registered under sections 12AA. Earlier, return filing was mandatory only when
income of a trust before availing of exemption under section 11 exceeded the
basic exemption limit.
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. ITO  22
taxmann.com 29/136 ITD 301 (Mum.)
Mumbai Tribunal held that when there was change in objects of assessee-society
which had been granted registration under section 12A, it couldn't claim
automatic benefits under sections 11 and 13 for those altered objects unless
said changes were vetted by revenue authorities. Therefore, if amended
memorandum and rules and regulations of assessee-society were found to be in
violation of provisions of Act, Assessing Officer was not bound by registration
granted earlier under section 12A and, he was free to make assessment in
accordance with law.
Tewari Charitable Trust v. DIT (Exemption) -  49
taxmann.com 45/ 153 ITD 129 (Mum. - Trib.)
In the instant case, Mumbai ITAT held that in order to obtain approval under
section 80G(5), donation made by a charitable trust to other trusts/institutions
amounts to application of income within meaning of section 11(1)(a).