A sale-cum-lease back transaction with APSEB cannot be regarded as a 'sham' or as a 'financing tranasction' A sale-cum-lease back transaction with APSEB cannot be regarded as a 'sham' or as a 'financing tranasction'

	Salient features of Finance Bill, 2008 by Ved Jain
	Salaried Class IT Refund information by Income Tax Deptt
	Budget 2008 snapshots by Naveen Gupta

« From the Courts »

SC modifies Advance Ruling on FBT and rules AAR with respect was not correct in its view in reading the words 'in India' after the word residence in sub-section (3)
Whether the amortization loss computed under Rule 9A is subject to or not subject to the provisions of section 80 and section 139 of the Income Tax Act
Powers of CIT - Cancellation of: Registration of charitable trust, Cancellation on mere search
Capital Gains: Enhanced compensation received - Year of taxability: Law applicable
Validity of: Exparte order - Condition precedent: Specific notice
Validity of: Re-assessment - Fresh facts received
Quite frequently, allegations of ‘benami-ship’ surface for content and refutation
Payment of noncompete fee by the Assessee was a business expenditure and not a capital expenditure
Claim of deduction on customs duty drawback under Section 80-IB of the Act- duty drawback is profit or gain derived from the business of an industrial undertaking
SC rules a person will become an ordinarily resident only if he has been residing in nine out of ten preceding years; and he has been in India for at least 730 days in the previous seven years
Full Bench of SC rules special audit of the accounts of the assessee-since an order under Section 142 (2A) does entail civil consequences, the rule audi alteram partem is required to be observed


« The effect of the omission of the second proviso to section 43 B of the Act wef 1-4-2004	The issue of notice under s. 143 (2) is mandatory for block assessment proceedings »
A sale-cum-lease back transaction with APSEB cannot be regarded as a 'sham' or as a 'financing tranasction'
December, 05th 2007
JCIT vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) A sale-cum-lease back transaction with APSEB cannot be regarded as a 'sham' or as a 'financing tranasction'. The assessee-purchaser is eligible for depreciation. Note: The judgement of the Supreme Court in Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs. IFCI 154 TM 512 was distinguished. See also: Orix Auto vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai): The decision of the Supreme Court in Asea Brown Boveri vs. IFCI 154 Taxman 512 does not lay down the proposition that in all cases of lease, only the lessee shall be treated as the owner and entitiled to depreciation.