Kwality Ice Cream Company And Anr Vs. UOI (Delhi HC)- Period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. If that be the position, the period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years.
CIT Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC)- In the instant case, it was held that since the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.
Echjay Forgings Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 286 (Bombay High Court)- Can expenditure incurred by a company on higher studies of the director’s son abroad be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 on the contention that he was appointed as a trainee in the company under “apprentice training scheme”, where there was no proof of existence of such scheme?
Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (Madras High Court) The assessee company, engaged in the business of development, manufacturing and marketing of electro-mechanical and static energy meters, took a bank loan for purchase of capital assets. The grant of bank loan for purchase of a capital asset is a capital receipt and not a trading receipt. The provisions of section 41(1) are attracted only in case of remission of a trading liability. Since the loan was taken for purchase of capital assets, waiver of a portion of principal would not amount to remission of a trading liability to attract the provisions of section 41(1). Further, such waiver cannot be treated as a benefit arising out of business and consequently, section 28(iv) will not apply in respect of such loan transaction.
Joseph George and Co. Vs. ITO (2010) 328 ITR 161 (Kerala High Court)- On the above issue, it was decided that while lodging is a business, however, letting out of building to the bank on long-term lease could not be treated as business. Therefore, the rental income from bank has to be assessed as income from house property.
Praveen Soni vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Delhi HC) – On the above issue, the Delhi High Court held that the provisions of section 80-IB nowhere stipulated a condition that the claim for deduction under this section had to be made from the first year of qualification of deduction failing which the claim will not be allowed in the remaining years of eligibility. Therefore, the deduction under section 80-IB should be allowed to the assessee for the remaining years up to the period for which his entitlement would accrue, provided the conditions mentioned under section 80-IB are fulfilled.
CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma – Can exemption under section 54 be claimed in respect of more than one residential flat acquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement with a builder, wherein the property owned by the assessee was developed by the builder who constructed eight residential flats in the said property, four of which were given to the assessee?
DIT Vs. DSD Noell GmbH (Delhi High Court)- Can the Assessing Officer bring to tax the actual profits as per books of accounts, if the same is higher than 10% of receipts which are deemed to be the profits under section 44BBB in case of a foreign company engaged in turnkey projects?
CIT Vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Delhi) -In this case, the assessee, engaged in the business of running cinemas, incurred expenditure towards architect fee for examining the technical viability of the proposal for takeover of cinema theatre for conversion into a multiplex/ four-screen cinema complexes. The project was, however, dropped due to lack of financial and technical viability. The issue under consideration is whether such expenses can be treated as revenue in nature, since no new asset has been created.
CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Delhi) – The issue under consideration in this case is whether depreciation is allowable on the written down value of the entire block, even though the block includes some machinery which has already been discarded and hence, cannot be put to use during the relevant previous year.
