CIT vs. Air Cargo Agents Association Of India (Bombay High Court)
Concept of mutuality in the light of Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) explained
The contributions made by the members to the assessee cannot be a subject matter of tax merely because the part of its excess of income over expenditure is invested in mutual funds. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the dividend received from mutual funds have not been offered to tax by the assessee. The concept of Mutual concerns not being subject to tax is based on the principle of no man can profit out of itself. Therefore the test to be satisfied before an association can be classified as a Mutual concern are complete identity between the members i.e. contributors and the participants, the action of the mutual concern must be in furtherance of its objectives and there must be no scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund. These tests have in fact been reiterated in Bangalore Club v/s. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC)
Oxford Softech P.Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty
The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is another matter that the assessing authorities have found that the claim is not admissible. Under these circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income
DCIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
40(a)(ia)/ S. 192: Employees deputed pursuant to a secondment agreement are not “employees” of the assessee and so the amounts paid by way of reimbursement of their salary is not subject to TDS in the assessee’s hands
The employees are not the employees of assessee Mahanagar Gas Ltd but employees of British Gas and they are working with assessee only in view of secondment agreement. As per joint venture agreement GAIL and British Gas have agreed to second, therefore, employees to the joint venture company i.e. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. on secondment basis and under secondment agreement certain employees have been seconded to the assessee. Since the employers were seconded for limited time of 2 to 3 years, the remuneration payable to these seconded employees were being paid by British Gas or GAIL recoverable from assessee on cost to cost basis. The nature of secondment agreement make clear the duties of second employees, their liabilities towards assessee and reimbursement of actual cost of remuneration, benefits and disbursement by assessee to the joint venture partners. These are reimbursements. Also the employee’s remuneration was allowable to tax in India then there would be tax deduction obligation on the employer who was responsible for making payment to the employees
Rakesh Tak vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
40(a)(ia), though inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013, is retrospective in operative because it is curative and intended to remedy an unintended consequence. Accordingly, if the payee has paid the tax, the payer will not suffer a disallowance
The second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is curative in nature intended to supply an obvious omission, take care of an unintended consequence and make the section workable. Section 40(a)(ia) without the second proviso resulted in the unintended consequence of disallowance of legitimate business expenditure even in a case where the payee in receipt of the income had paid tax, and, therefore, the second proviso although inserted with effect from 1st April, 2013 is curative in nature and has retrospective effect
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…