B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
anyo LSI Technology India Private Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Gain from fluctuation of foreign exchange is directly related with the export activities and should be considered as income derived from export in the year in which the export took place for the purpose of deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Regent Granito India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Dis allowance for the discount offered against defective materials supplied can not be sustained- In the present case, the A.O. has merely doubted that the assessee is writing off the amount and giving credit to the customers to reduce its profit but the A.O. could not corroborate the same by bringing on record at least some corroborative evidence. It is also to be noted that it is not a case of allowing discount simplicitor. Discounts were allowed on account of breakage or defects in quality.
ITO Vs Yash Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deducted tax @ 1.12% from the payments made to M/s Laxmichand Dharshi during the financial year 2006-07 u/s 194C of the I T Act being the payment made to sub contractor. According to the AO, such payments made to M/s Laxmichand Dharshi has to be treated as hire charges paid for transportation of containers/trucks as per bills raised since there is no written contract/ sub contract agreement between the parties concerned.
ACIT Vs. Oxford Softeck Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- If it is supposed that all the conditions are fulfilled but then also the same cannot be added as income in the hands of the payer company as such amount can be added only to the income of a person as dividend who is a shareholder to whom such loan and advances made. Keeping in view these facts and the aforementioned case law relied upon by ld. CIT(A) and also the provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that addition in the hands of the assessee company has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) and to that extent we uphold his order and it is held that addition has rightly been deleted in the hands of the assessee company.
Karntaka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Whether the expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance of residential quarters of the staff which were owned by the assessee company can be treated as a benefit given to the employees and is covered under clause (E) of subsection (2) of section 115WB relating to employees’ welfare – Whether the Board circular which provides that even the indirect expenditure which benefit employees’ welfare is covered under FBT is not applicable as the expenditure incurred by the assessee to upkeep its assets doesn’t mean even remotely that the benefits were provided to employees either directly or indirectly. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
FM Pranab Mukherjee on Friday moved a bill in the Lok Sabha to amend the Customs Act to validate the showcause notices given by different officials during the past several years. The bill, which seeks to validate notices rendered invalid by the Supreme Court on technical ground, will be taken up for discussion and passage next week.
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (Delhi High Court)- Payment made by the assessee on settlement of dispute with a company of USA being neither a fine or a penalty for a proved offence nor an amount of Compensation of an offence but is merely a sum in settlement of an action charging the assessee was denied and not proved the same cannot be rendered to be inadmissible deduction while determining the assessee’s income from business.
Ankur Cm Food Products (Guj) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (ITAT Rajkot)- Ground No. 2 of appeal of revenue is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.7,01,1 19 on account of excess stock of packing material. During the course of survey at factory premises empty bags and empty pouches numbers 1,02,98,914 were found against the book stock of 83,39,051. There was excess stock of packing material of 19,59,863 pouches valuing Rs.7,01,1 19. In the statement, Shri Ashok Parekh, director of the company while answering question No. 39 stated that packing material of outside parties for which the assessee is doing job work were also at the factory premises.
ITO Vs Gay Loard Industries Ltd (Ahmedabad ITAT)- Once the existence of the investor is proved, there is no further burden on the assessee to prove whether that person itself has invested the said money or some other person has made investment in the name of that person. Thus majority of the courts are of the View that once the shareholders are identified, no addition can be made for unexplained share capital.
