DIT v Sahu Jain Trust – Exemption under s 11 — A charitable trust, if acquires tenancy right in respect of some immovable property owned by a different person, and thereafter sublets the said tenancy right and in the process earns some income, such income should not be treated to be an income from business as to attract the provisions contained in s 11(4A) — as held by KolHC in DIT v Sahu Jain Trust; ITA No. 38 of 2001, 13 April 2011
Richter Holding Ltd v. ADIT – The Vodafone controversy continues – To determine taxability of acquisition of shares of a non-resident company holding majority shares in an Indian company by another non-resident, it may be necessary for the fact finding authority to lift the corporate veil to look into the real nature of transaction to ascertain virtual facts.
In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under section 37.
When a partnership firm is dissolved and the erstwhile partner receives stock, it is a capital asset in his hands. When that asset is introduced into a business as stock, it gets converted into stock-in-trade. The value of this stock will have to be the market value on the date of introduction. The Tribunal’s reasoning that the assessee cannot value the stock introduced in the business at market value because that was not the price she paid for it is flawed because if the assessee on having received her distributed share of stock of jewellery from the dissolved firm had sold it, and thereafter commenced her proprietorship business of jewellery again; within short span; by buying the jewellery from the market from the proceeds of stock sold on dissolution of the erstwhile firms, the stock of the proprietorship concern would without doubt be valued at market value. The same principle would apply if the assessee used her share of the stock obtained from the dissolved firm in the new business.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (ITA No. 348 of 2011) (Judgement date: 24 February 2011, Assessment Year: 2005-06) held that the taxpayer was eligible to claim weighted deduction on in-house Research and Development (R&D) expenditure from the year in which the taxpayer made an application to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). The High Court observed that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) does not suggest or imply that the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR will be the cut-off date for eligibility of weighted deduction on the expenditure incurred on in-house R&D to avail benefit of Section 35(2AB) of the Act.
If a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is challenged on the ground that information leading to reasons to believe for authorising search was irrelevant then how should this question be resolved? Should the court, Look into the records and decide it alone; or Disclose the information to the aggrieved person and then adjudicate upon it, after hearing the parties (a)The Director of Income-tax (Investigation) Kanpur had jurisdiction to authorise the search;
The Bombay HC last week quashed the decision of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which held the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the licensing authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, did not have the powers to amend licences with retrospective effect. The CESTAT ruling was challenged by Bhilwara Spinners Ltd, manufacturers of yarn, which were granted ‘export promotion capital goods’ licence to import capital goods. The terms had to be changed due to market circumstances.
Permanent injunction against firm for violating copyright – The Delhi high court last week passed permanent injunction against a firm which violated the copyright and trade mark of Castrol Ltd in the field of oils and lubricants. The court further asked the guilty firm to pay “punitive damages” of Rs 10 lakh. This, explained the judgment of the high court, was “with a view to discourage and dishearten the law-breakers to indulge in such like violations with impunity.”
Petitioner was an employee in the 1st respondent – Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31.3.2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/-. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,331/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.
Merely because the shares had been purchased from borrowed funds obtained on high rate of interest would not change the nature of the transaction from investment to one in the nature of an “adventure in the nature of trade.
