CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd (Bombay High Court) – When we apply this functional test suggested by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, we find that impugned software does not form part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee and hence the same is to be disallowed a revenue expenditure. We hold so because we find that the business of the assessee company is that of manufacturing of telecommunication and power cable accessories and trading in oil retracing system and other products and impugned software is an Enterprises Resources Planning (ERP) package and hence it facilitate the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management to conduct the assessee’s business more efficiently or more profitably but it is not in the nature of profit making apparatus. We, therefore, decide this issue also in favour of the assessee and we hold that this expenditure of Rs.20.60 lakhs is of revenue expenditure. We hold so by following the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the LD AR of the assessee.
These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since all these appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law
CIT Vs Mallikarjun Geo resources Associates (Uttarakhand High Court)- The word “production” takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)- Facility of providing mobile telephone towers for various service provider – Referring to various judgements of the Apex Court and other courts, petitioner’s counsel contended that petitioner has already remitted the entire service tax due to the Centre.
Advance Television Network Ltd. Versus The Registrar Of Companies (Delhi High Court) – Mr. Beri submits that the petitioner-company has not done any business since 2001-2002 and thus, it has not earned any income for the last ten years. He states there is no hope or prospect of the petitioner-company doing any further business as stated in its Memorandum of Association. He submits that keeping in view the long duration in which the petitioner company had not done any business, it would be just and equitable to wind up the petitioner company. In this context, he relies upon judgments in Surendra Kumar Pareek Vs. Shree Guru Nanak Oils Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 82 CC 642 (Raj.), A. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Union Hardwares (Private) Ltd., (1997) 89 CC 37 (Kerala) and Registrar of Companies, Bihar Vs. Shreepalpur Cold Storage Private Ltd., (1974) 44 CC 479 (Patna).
High Court held that the scope of powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP) under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is restricted to dealing with only those issues in respect of which variations are proposed as per the draft assessment order and not beyond.
CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed u/s153 (3)(ii) to give effect to s. 263 orders, the AO is required to pass the order within a ‘reasonable period’. Non-specification of period of limitation does not mean that the AO can wait for indefinite period before passing the consequential order. On facts, the period of 3 years & 8 months that had elapsed since the passing of the s. 263 order was ‘certainly much beyond the reasonable period that can be allowed to the AO to pass the consequential order’. As the s. 263 order was rightly held to be infructuous, the effect order passed thereafter is not valid.
NISCHINTAPUR TEA CO. LTD Versus SUBRATA SEN & ORS ( Calcutta High Court) – An application under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was filed in this court way back in 1985. It was numbered as C.P. No. 252 of 1985. It is still pending. The petitioner in that application was one Amita Sen, who has since died. In her place, her three sons Subrata, Ranjan and Sanjay are now substituted as petitioners being petitioner nos. 1.(a), (b) and (c).Two applications were heard by me for several days. They were most seriously contested. One of them (C.A. No. 686 of 2010) was an application by the company for dismissal of the Section 397, 398 application. One Ajit Kumar Agarwal, opposed this application as an intervenor. It was strenuously argued on his behalf that the company should not be granted the prayers. Neither, the petitioners in the Section 397, 398 application should be allowed to withdraw from the application. He made an application (C.A. No. 721 of 2010)for dismissal of C.A. 686 of 2010.
De Nora India Limited Versus Union Of India And Ors (Delhi HC) The challenge in this writ petition by De Nora India Limited („DNIL‟) [formerly known as Titanor Components Limited („TCL‟)] is to an order dated 12th August 2010 passed by the Department of Commerce („DOC‟) (Supply Division) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry („MOCI‟), Government of India partly allowing the appeal of DNIL and upholding the order dated 22nd February 2010 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals („DGS&D‟) banning DNIL from dealing with all the departments/ministries/offices of the Government of India but reducing the period of ban from five years to a period of one year operative from 22nd February 2010 and in relation only to tender notices of the DGS&D.
SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ANR Company Applications No. 578-579/2011 have been filed by the Department of Telecommunication (in short ‘DOT’) under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recall and stay of this Court’s order dated 5th February, 2010 by virtue of which amalgamation of Spice Communication Limited (for short ‘Spice’) with Idea Cellular Limited (for short ‘Idea’) was allowed.
