Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs Electronic Controls & Discharge Systems (P) Ltd [2011] 13 Taxmann.com 193 (Kerala High Court)- Benefit of deduction under Section 10A is not available in respect of sales made to a unit in Special Economic Zone even though such sales are considered as ‘deemed exports’ under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.
What are Tax Saving Schemes? These schemes offer tax rebates to the investors under specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the Government offers tax incentives for investment in specified avenues. e.g. Equity Linked Savings Schemes (ELSS). Pension schemes launched by the mutual funds also offer tax benefits. These schemes are growth oriented and invest pre-dominantly in equities. Their growth opportunities and risks associated are like any equity-oriented scheme.
Income received, otherwise than on transfer (subject to the exemption of long-term capital gains provided for in section 10(38) of the Act, discussed elsewhere in this Statement), in respect of units of a mutual fund would be exempt from tax under Section 10(35) of the Act.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs.22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital – the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T.Act.
In Re Millennium IT Software Ltd (AAR)- In the present case, not merely the use is licensed but the licensee is given the right to copy it and use it wherever it is needed by it for its business. The right given for a consideration to copy the copyrighted software and use it for its own purposes by ICEL whenever and wherever needed by it, clearly attracts the definition of royalty to the consideration paid by ICEL to the applicant, though the right granted may be limited and does not take in a right to further transfer the right or its use.
Direct Tax Case laws relevant for November, 2011 CA Examinations, Indirect Tax Case laws relevant for November, 2011 CA Examinations, Additional Case laws relevant for November, 2011 CA Examinations
Integrated Professional Competence Course [IPCC] and Professional Competence Course [PCC] Supplementary Study Paper – 2011 [Relevant for May 2012 and November 2012 examinations] Supplementary Study Paper – 2010 [Relevant for May 2011 and November 2011 examinations] CA Final Course [New] Supplementary Study Paper – 2011 [Relevant for May 2012 and November 2012 examinations]
CIT Vs Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court)- From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order has been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT as the case may be whichever period expires later. The proviso to section 275(1)(a) has only had the effect of extending the period of imposing penalty from six months to one year within the receipt of the order of the Commissioner after 1st June, 2003.
Many argue that the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 are draconian in nature. Borrowers do often refer to their good relations with the Bank for a considerable time and they express angst at the Bank’s action under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The borrowers do often question as to why the Bank should not consider the reputation of the customer, understand the temporary difficulties and grant time rather proceeding against the ‘Secured Asset’ using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mechanically.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Allahabad high court and held that manufacturers of beer in the state are liable to pay excise duty from the stage of fermentation and not when beer was fit for human consumption. Mohan Meakin Breweries and other distilleries had challenged the imposition of duty from the stage of fermentation.
