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.
General Electric Company Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)- Section 163 really provides only the machinery for giving effect to Sections 160 and 161, and the mere appointment of an agent under Section 163 would be of no consequence unless there is income in respect of which the agent can be held to be a representative- assessee under Section 160 and can be assessed as such under Section 161 of the Act.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)- The High Court examined in detail the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976 (MZA) and observed that Union of India had no sovereignty over the EEZ. The Union of India only had certain sovereign rights over the EEZ. The High Court […]
Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
CIT Vs Dinesh Megji Toprani (HUF) (Bombay High Court)- The assessee HUF had sold certain immovable properties and out of the sale proceeds received, purchased immovable properties and claimed benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the property was purchased in the name of the individuals namely Dr.Dinesh Megji Toprani and Mrs.Jyoti Dinesh Toprani and not in the name of the HUF and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bhura Exports Ltd Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court, Decided on August 30, 2011)- When the limitation provided earlier in Section 231 of the Act for taking action u/s 201 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1989 and was re-introduced by way of addition of sub-Section (3) of Section 201 with effect from April 1, 2010, there is no bar of the period of limitation for taking action under Section 201 of the Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya Pradesh High Court)- In the present case, Sukhnandan Jain was on business tour and was staying at Govt. Rest House, Sagar from where he was kidnapped.
CIT Vs V. R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- The observation made in paragraph 58 at page 414 of the aforementioned judgement, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for revenue seeks only to emphasise that the assessee in that case, had only acquired access to technology which was not related to any secret process or patent rights and thus in continuum it is mentioned that not even a right to use the trademark or brand name had inhered in the assessee.
The expenditure was incurred by the assessee on ad films in respect of an ongoing business and there was no enduring benefit on the same. Hence, it was asses-sable as revenue expenditure, An expenditure incurred on advertisements and websites for sales promotion is revenue in nature. Computer peripherals are entitled to depreciation at 60%.
Status Home and Enclaves (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in withdrawing the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) merely because the Development Agreement was not produced before the Assessing Officer when the said agreement was duly submitted before the considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no objection in that regard was raised by the Department either in the ground of appeal or in course of argument nor the Tribunal require production of the agreement?
