CIT vs. Surya Herbal Ltd (Supreme Court) – Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income – Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

DCIT Vs. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd (SC)- Whether ITAT was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs.21,35,766/- from a Company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD. Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?

Uniflex Cables Ltd. versus C.C.E. (Supreme Court)- With regard to the imposition of penalty in the present case is concerned, the Commissioner, himself in his order-inoriginal has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature. Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty. Honorable Supreme Court held that as Commissioner himself found that it is only a case of interpretational nature, in our considered opinion, no penalty could be and is liable to be imposed on the appellant herein.

International Business Machines Corp v Comm of Taxation (Federal Court of Australia)- SLA grants to IBMA such IP rights as are necessary for distribution of the relevant products by IBMA. It is not a distribution agreement which confers distribution rights independently of the grant of IP rights. The detail of the SLA concerns the definition of IP and IP rights. There is no such detail with respect to distribution rights. In the language of Article 12(4) of the Treaty, the Payments are either ‘consideration for… the right to use any copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trademark or other like property or right’ within the meaning of Article 1 2(4)(a)(i) or, to the extent that the Payments do not fall within Article 1 2(4)(a)(i), the Payments are for either ‘technical… or commercial knowledge or information’ supplied by IBM (Article 12(4)(b)(i)) or for ‘the supply of any assistance of an ancillary and subsidiary nature’ to enable the application of the rights referred to in Article 1 2(4)(a)(i) or the knowledge/information referred to in Article 1 2(4)(b)(i) (Article 1 2(4)(b)(ii)). The rights/content granted by the SLA are, in each case, rights/content of a kind contemplated by Article 12(4).

Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR. (SC) – In this case, a firm issued cheques to a person but it was returned by the bank as the account had been closed. The payee filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and two partners. During the trial, the two partners produced the copy of the registration of the firm. It indicated that there were two more partners in the firm. So the payee wanted to make them also parties. The newcomers moved the Gujarat high court for quashing this move. The high court refused to do so. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court order and asked it to reconsider the case.

Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & ANR. Vs. Mamlatdar & Ors. (SC) – Honorable SC held that We do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that imposition of penalty is in violation of the principles of natural justice. We find from the orders passed by the authorities that the appellants had given incorrect information with regard to total number of connections given by them. The requisite information was not provided by the appellants in spite of issuance of notices and requests made to the appellants.

State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. M/s. Malik Traders (SC) – A person may have a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited for not entering into contract or if some act is not performed, then even though he may have a right to withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/security, in no way, affects any statutory right under the Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own wrong by not allowing forfeiture.

The judgment in the case, Sri Ramachandrappa vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co, stated that compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount which should appear to be just, fair and proper.

Supreme Court has recently held in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. that if a prerecorded music cassette or a popular film or musical score is imported into India, duty will necessarily have to be charged on the value of the final product. As per Rule 9, in determining the transaction value there has to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, royalties and the license fees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of goods. Therefore, when prerecorded music cassette is imported as against the blank cassette, definitely its value goes up in the market which is in addition to its value and therefore duty shall have to be charged on the value of the final product. Therefore, there can be no dispute with regard to the fact that value of the royalty paid is to be included in the transaction value.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Gurukripa Resins Private Limited (SC) – Central Excise- manufacture- Rosin and Turpentine- process of lifting water is incidental to manufacture; the operation of lifting of the water from the well to the higher levels, is so integrally connected with the manufacture of “Turpentine Oil” and “Rosin”, that without this activity it is impossible to manufacture the said goods and therefore, the processing of the said raw material in or in relation to manufacture of the said final goods is carried on with the aid of power.