Dy. CIT Vs Pradip N Desai (Gujarat High Court)- The assessee company is a leasing company which is engaged in leasing of plant and machinery, motor cars, etc. to its client. It is neither the case of the assessee nor is there anything on record to indicate that the assessee uses the vehicles in question in its business of transportation or that the assessee is engaged in the business of hire.
Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, dated 31.12.2002, made in I.T.A No. 1890/Mds/96, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT, Tiruchy Vs P L Chemical Limited (Madras High Court)- The contract entered into led to the loss of source of income in the ordinary course of business. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee’s business hitherto till 1995 to market its products and its brand name, thus no longer available in toto, the non-compete fee thus received by the assessee, assumes the character of capital, which cannot be assessed under the provisions of the Act.
CIT, Bareilly Vs M/s Henna Zebraat (Allahabad High Court)- The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda and Co. (P) Ltd Vs. CBDT, 223 ITR 271, according to which, if net proceeds are received in foreign exchange and credited then assessee would not be disentitled from exemption.
Gujarat Organics Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24 March 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008- 09. Even prior to Assessment Year 2008- 09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 14A.
The short question that arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the amount paid by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 outside India as consideration in terms of the basic engineering and training agreement dated October 22, 1989 is liable to Indian income-tax as income deemed to have accrued to petitioner No. 2 in India in view of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
Audco India Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Both the conditions as mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of the third proviso to section 80HHC(3) are required to be satisfied for allowing deduction under section 80HHC in respect of DEPB income in cases where the turnover exceeds Rs. 10 crores.
CIT Vs Alembic Glass Industries Limited (Gujarat High Court)- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible.
bdul Razzak A Rajkotia Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no material worth the name found at the time of search divulging the undisclosed income earned by the assessee by way of unrecorded sales. Seized material relates to unrecorded sale by the `Compay’ and that too for a period of 18 days from 0 1.04.2003 to 18.04.2003.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee today hoped that the Direct Taxes Code (DTC), which seeks to replace the Income Tax Act of 1961, would come into force from April 1, 2012.
