UNITED BIOTECH PVT. LTD. Versus ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ORS (Delhi HC) – The Petitioner UBPL states that it is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacturing and selling of pharmaceutical preparations including injections bearing the trade mark FORZID. UBPL claims that since 2002 it took steps to launch CEFTAZIDIME injections in the market under the trade mark FORZID. It entered into a licence agreement with M/s. Oscar Remedies Pvt. Ltd. („ORPL‟), Haryana for manufacturing FORZID injections. UBPL made an application for registration of the said trade mark under No. 1144258 dated 18th October 2002 in Class 5. The said mark was advertised in Journal Mega dated 25th November 2003. The registration was granted unopposed. The sales figures of UBPL‟s products under the trade mark FORZID for the years 2002-03 till 2006-07 have been set out in the writ petition.
CIT v Rajiv Shukla (High Court of Delhi) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee under section 54F on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence showing investment in Capital Deposit Account Scheme under section 54F and that the flat sold by him was a depreciable asset. As per provisions of section 50, the capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable asset shall be deemed to be the capital gain arising from transfer of short term capital asset and, therefore, deduction under section 54F was not available. Accordingly, AO made an addition of Rs.91,77,118/- under the head Short Term Capital Gain.
CIT v Kewalchand Pratapchand (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) – From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparent that the Board Circular dt.27.3.2000 was applicable even to the old references which are still pending and are undecided. By circular dated 27.3.2000 financial limit to the extent of tax liability of Rs.2 lakh was fixed, which is applicable in this case.
TRO v Industrial Finance Corpn. of India and Ors. (Gujrat HC)- The charges created against the property, by the mortgaging of the property by the assessee-borrower in favour of the financial institution during the pendency of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be declared as void against any claim in respect of income tax if the same was made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceedings, or without notice of tax or other sum payable by the assessee.
Dheeraj Construction and Industries Ltd. Versus CIT – Principle laid down in the case of Mc Dowel and Co. Ltd. (supra), has no application in deciding the dispute involved herein. It is absurd to suggest that even though the finding of fictitious claim is not based on any material discovered during search and seizure, by taking aid of the decision in the case of Mc Dowel and Co. Ltd. (supra), the special rate of tax specified in Section 113 of the Act would be applicable to such assessment instead of the rate fixed for regular assessment.
CIT v Kokilaben A Shah (Gujrat HC) – Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.
CIT v Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd. (Bombay HC)- ITAT was justified in holding that in respect of unsold sugar lying in stock, central excise liability was not incurred and consequently the addition of excise duty made by the assessing officer to the value of the excisable goods was liable to be deleted.
CIT v Dynamic Vertical Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Is disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source attracted in respect of payment for purchase of software from a non-resident, by treating the same as royalty in case where the purchase is for subsequent resale in the Indian market?
Madras High Court has stayed the Registration of Lawyers For Service Tax. The Court has passed an order of interim injunction dated 24.06.2011 restraining the Ministry of Finance from compelling the members of the Petitioner from registering themselves with the service tax authorities and collecting service-tax from them until further orders in response to writ petition filed by The Revenue Bar Association, Madras.
CIT v Volpak Securities Ltd. (Gujrat High Court)- With respect to the portion of penalty, which the CIT [A] confirmed, the same was deleted by the Tribunal observing that the assessee was liable to make payment of Rs. 1,53,000/ on 23rd June 1997 in respect of mark-to-market settlement for which purpose Rs. 1,50,000/ was accepted from Shri Ashok Patel, Director in cash. However, since some funds were available in the books on that date, only Rs. 75,000/ was deposited in the Bank on 23rd June 1997 and the balance, after meeting certain other payments, was returned to the Director.
