Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, dated 31.12.2002, made in I.T.A No. 1890/Mds/96, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT, Tiruchy Vs P L Chemical Limited (Madras High Court)- The contract entered into led to the loss of source of income in the ordinary course of business. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee’s business hitherto till 1995 to market its products and its brand name, thus no longer available in toto, the non-compete fee thus received by the assessee, assumes the character of capital, which cannot be assessed under the provisions of the Act.
CIT, Bareilly Vs M/s Henna Zebraat (Allahabad High Court)- The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda and Co. (P) Ltd Vs. CBDT, 223 ITR 271, according to which, if net proceeds are received in foreign exchange and credited then assessee would not be disentitled from exemption.
The short question that arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the amount paid by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 outside India as consideration in terms of the basic engineering and training agreement dated October 22, 1989 is liable to Indian income-tax as income deemed to have accrued to petitioner No. 2 in India in view of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
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.
