CIT Vs. Galileo India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Rule 8D has been held to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2008-09 by this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No.687/2009 dated 18.11.2011. However, in the said decision it has been observed that direct and indirect expenses have to be disallowed under Section 14A, when an assessee earns exempt income.
Tribunal while allowing the appeal held that the electricity charges partake of the nature of statutory liability and accordingly will have to be allowed as deduction irrespective of whether or not the same has been paid and notwithstanding that the assessee has disputed any liability to pay any part of such charges. Section 43B of the Act does not speak about the electricity charges.
DIT Vs Ericsson AB (Delhi High Court)- It was argued that the Explanation as initially inserted in the year 2007 after subsection (2) of section 9 sought to clarify as to when income received by way of interest, royalty or fees for technical services, can be regarded as deemed to accrue or arise in India. The subsequent amendment made in the Explanation by the Finance Act, 2010 enacts a further clarification (by effectively adding clause (ii) in the Explanation) in so far as the taxability of fees for technical services are concerned. The Supreme Court in Ishikawajima (supra) has held that if the transfer of property in goods as well as the payment were both made outside India, the transaction of supply was not chargeable to tax in India inspite of the fact that the contract was signed in India.
Though the Income Tax Department made a provision for electronic filing of returns, it appears that the ITR-V Form containing the due verification of the return of the assessee was required to be remitted only by ordinary post. The instructions which were furnished to assessees, a copy of which has been placed on record, specifically stipulate that the ITR-V form should not be sent either by registered post or by speed post or courier.
Outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal covered by definition of ‘input service’ upto 31.03.2008, service tax paid thereon eligible as CENVAT Credit – CESTAT Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd & Ors to this extent legal and valid till 01.04.2008 – No merit in Revenue Appeals. Revenue Appeals rejected.
(a) The light energy which is used as a carrier in telecommunication service for rendering service is covered by the Parliamentary Legislation i.e. the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (109-a). It does not fall within the Entry 54 of List-II of VII Schedule. (b) The contract in question is not a composite contract. It is an indivisible contract and a contract of service simplicitor. There is no element of sale at all to any extent. It is not a contract of sales simplicitor as contended by the State.
‘Whether the revival scheme submitted by the petitioner under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and accepted by Court amounts to compounding with the principal debtor leading to the discharge of the surety within the meaning of sections 134 and 135 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT (Investigation)- Bombay HC – The mode and manner in which all these notes are prepared, show the absence of any relevant material with authorities which would have enabled them to have ‘a reason to believe’ that action under Section 132(1) of the Act was essential. No new material as such has been disclosed anywhere. No document or report of alleged discreet inquiry forms part of these notes.
Arjun Industries Ltd & Anr Vs. Industrial Development Bank Of India & Anr.(Delhi HC) – Para 7 of the order dated 23.05.2007 reads as under:- ‘During the course of arguments, we had put to learned counsel for the parties that prima facie there does not appear to be any legal impediment or obstacle in the assignment of the debt by financial institution like IDBI. However, if the respondents wish to contest the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on merits and/or to contend that petitioner was also bound by the settlement recommended for acceptance by the petitioner predecessor-ininterest i.e. IDBI or to urge any ground on merits in defence to the OA,
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
