The Week That Was - Episode 36 (April 29, 2016)

NOTIFICATIONS

30

CBDT tightens procedure for claiming house rent allowance; New Rule 26C inserted for furnishing evidence relating to landlord

29

Rule 6 amended to insert word Pr CCIT or DGIT; For No 3CK and 3CL amended

CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-863-HC-MUM-ST + Story

CLEARTRIP PVT LTD Vs UoI : BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: April 26, 2016)

ST - There is no question of any recovery of tax by coercive means, unless the investigation results into issuance of a SCN, an opportunity to the Petitioner to resist the demand, an adjudication thereof by a reasoned order and protective remedies such as appeals - coercive measures, including effecting any arrest, would arise only when investigation has been completed and on launching the prosecution – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 16]

Petition disposed of

2016-TIOL-862-HC-MAD-CUS

PICASSO OVERSEAS Vs CESTAT : MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: March 4, 2016)

Customs Act 1962, appeal under Sec 130A - Pre-deposit ordered by the Tribunal further reduced by the High Court - The appellant did not deposit the any amount resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal - Conditional order passed by the CESTAT attained finality, and a consequential order was also passed - The conditional order was neither challenged by way of an appeal nor an application for extension of time or for modification was ever filed - Question of interfering with said conditional order thereafter by Tribunal does not arise as it is beyond its jurisdiction - Contention that no finality attaches to an interim order is rejected - Appeal being without merit is dismissed. (Para 18-20)

CMA dismissed

2016-TIOL-667-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs BAYER BIOSCIENCE PVT LTD : DELHI ITAT (Dated: April 21, 2016)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 30, 37 & 145.

Whether once the provision was found to be reasonable, its deductibility has nothing to do with events of the subsequent year - YES: ITAT

Whether a provision made in excess or in short, to bonafide errors, even if any, can result in corresponding adjustment in those years but it cannot affect admissibility of claim in the year in which is made - YES: ITAT

Whether where the assessee failed to substantiate its claim before the AO inspite of repeated opportunities, then disallowance is warranted - YES: ITAT

Whether depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60% is admissible being peripheral devices of computer - YES : ITAT

Whether where the mandatory accounting standards are followed, even an anticipated loss, crystallized or not, in the relevant previous year, is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of business profits - YES: ITAT

Whether where assessee's project is not materialized and the advances paid thereby cannot be recovered and where the assessee has written off the same in the books of account as bad debts/advances, then same is to be allowable as business expenditure - YES: ITAT

Revenue's appeal partly allowed