CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (Karnataka High Court)- The High Court had to consider two issues for AY 2001-02 & onwards: whether (i) the loss incurred by a non-eligible unit & (ii) the brought forward unabsorbed loss & unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit has to be set-off against the profits of the eligible unit before allowing deduction u/s 10A/ 10B.
Section 65(39a) was amended by substituting vide Section 88 of the Finance Act, 2005, which is reproduced below. (39a)’erection, commissioning or installation’ means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency, in relation to:- (i) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment; or (ii) installation of– (a) electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings therefore; or (b) plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids; or
CIT vs G4S Securities System (India) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)- Payment of royalty by the assessee on a year-to-year basis on the net sales in lieu of technical know-how assistance and the trademark would not amount to capital expenditure and will amount to revenue expenditure. The ownership rights of the trademark and know-how throughout were vested with G4F and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all G4F know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on a year-to-year basis on the net sales of the assessee and at no point of time was the assessee entitled to become the exclusive owner of the technical know-how and the trademark. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee as royalty is revenue expenditure and is, therefore, relatable under s 37(1) of the Act.
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta) – It was never the intention of the legislature to deprive an assessee of the benefit of deduction of tax, duty etc. actually paid by him during the previous year, although in advance, according to the method of accounting followed by him. If we accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal, an advance payer of tax, duty etc. payable in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him will not be entitled to get the benefit even in the next year when liability to pay would accrue in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him because the benefit of Section 43B is given on the basis of actual payment made in the previous year.
Nihilent Technologies Private Limited Vs DCIT & Anr. (Mumbai High Court)- A division bench of the Bombay high court has quashed the reopening of the income tax assessment of Nihilent Technologies Ltd after four years. The software company had shares held by Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
CIT Vs Phil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (High Court of Bombay) – interest paid on borrowings utilized for the purchase of shares in order to retain managing agency by the assessee company was held allowable as business expenditure. We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the respondent no.1 is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is correct and deserves to be accepted.
In all these three appeals the assessee is the same and even the issue is identical, which pertains to three different assessment years, the factual premise on which such an issue has arisen for consideration is somewhat different. Therefore, we propose to first take up the facts of ITA No.14/2005 to understand and appreciate the question of law on which this appeal is admitted.
Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
Sanjay Ghai Vs Dy. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), New Delhi on 29th August, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Rajendra G. Shah V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distributiohn Company Limited (Bombay High Court) -The petitioner had thus admitted even in the plaint in the suit that the premises were used exclusively for the purpose of office not only by him but were shared with another advocate principally practicing in Mumbai. In view of the fact that the suit premises are exclusively used for the purpose of office, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be charged for electricity consumed at the rate meant for domestic use, i.e. LT I – Residential use. The user of the suit is clearly a non-domestic and non-residential. The executing Court below therefore did not commit any error in holding that the decree which was passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 was non-executable in view of the fact that the revised tariff had been fixed by the MERC which make the classification of the tariff only on the basis of domestic and non-domestic uses and not on the basis of residential use as opposed to commercial use.
