Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. & Anr. (Delhi HC) – Notwithstanding IFCI Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation towards the Company in its capacity as an Operating Agency and notwithstanding Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation, being appointed as a consultant, towards the’Company’; we find that there would be no breach of the said fiduciary obligation in law and additionally on facts, the former on account of the legal position as noted herein above and on facts, for the facts which we have noted in para 7 herein above i.e. that when Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was discussing the terms on which it would be acting as an advisor to the’Company’,
RRB Consultants And Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT ( Delhi HC) – In the present case, the assessee has not failed or omitted to disclose material facts either deliberately or intentionally. On the other hand, full and true information and details were furnished and given during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The relevant and germane facts were truly and fully disclosed. As per the case of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer made an error of judgment and did not form a proper legal opinion.
B.S. Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Delhi High Court) – At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the relevance of the learned Single Judge noting the conduct of the appellant to resile from what was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.2.2010 when the writ petition was finally heard. Learned counsel highlighted that in the context of the building consisting of a ground floor, a first floor, a second floor and a third floor on a plot of land ad-measuring 182.55 sq.yd. it would be difficult to believe that a family consisting of the appellant, his wife, a married son having a wife and children (number whereof appellant refused to furnish) and an unmarried daughter would be occupying four floors and when this was sought to be quizzed from the appellant he resiled even from the statement that he, his wife, his married son along with the family and his unmarried daughter were occupying the building.
The first respondent filed a claim petition before the second respondent seeking payment of gratuity for the period, which he has rendered services to the petitioner’s lorry transport, from 01.04.1991 to 19.04.2007, on which date he had voluntarily stopped himself from services. He claimed gratuity for a period of 10 years and a monthly salary of Rs.3,600/-. The total gratuity claim was Rs.28,800/-. The said application filed by the first respondent was taken on file by the second respondent as P.G.No.90 of 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner.
S M Sundaram Vs. CIT (Madras High Court)- Under section 48(1), the deduction in respect of the full value of the consideration received or accrued regarding the expenditure incurred wholly, etc. and cost of acquisition of asset and the cost of improvement are granted. This deduction has admittedly been granted from the capital gain in the hands of the partnership firm.
CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (Delhi High Court)- Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This interpretation would allow the rule of purposive construction with noscitur a sociis, as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India v. Retd. LIC Officers Assn. [2008] 3 SCC 321.
Suit CS (OS) No. 985/2002 has been filed by Shri Rajender Shanker against his brother Shri Devendra Shanker seeking partition of the estate of their father late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur alleged to be comprising of house No.104, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, investments in FDRs, Units, Shares, jewellery, goods etc. it is alleged in the plaint that late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur died intestate on 7th February, 1995 leaving the plaintiff and the defendant as his class I legal heirs.
Uttam Bir Singh Bedi vs. UOI (Madras High Court) – The ITAT is a judicial body and under the provisions of Sections 252 and 255 of the Income-tax Act, statutory powers are conferred on the President, including delegation of powers to the Senior Vice President or the Vice President. The President exercises administrative control over the Benches. But, no provision of the Income-tax Act or for that matter the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 confer any power on the President to write the ACRs of the Members.
The assessee, Rollatainers Ltd was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) due to poor financial position and erosion of entire net worth. Pursuant to Restructuring Package as approved by Corporate Restructuring Cell, the bank waived off the interest and principal amount of working capital loan granted in the form of ‘Cash Credit’ to the assessee. The assessee treated the waiver of principal amount of loan as capital receipt and hence argued that the same was not taxable. A division bench of Delhi HC, rejecting assessee’s contention, ruled that waiver of principal amount of working capital loan in the form of Cash Credit was ‘revenue’ in nature.
CIT Vs. East India Syntex Limited (Delhi High Court)- It is not in dispute that the entries were made contemporaneously when the expenditure was incurred between September, 1997 and December 1997. Therefore, though the search was in September, 1998, it cannot be denied that the entries had been made in the books of accounts by that time. This is what the CIT (A) has noted in para 27 of his order by saying that the case of the AO is not that these were not made in the regular books of account.
