M/s M Narayanan & Bros Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)- In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P.R. Metrani Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation.
Anil Batra Vs CCIT (Delhi High Court)- Whether when assessee has already been convicted for two AYs and the complaint filed for the third year u/s 276B, any revision of the compounding guidelines and an intimation to the assessee in this regard would mean that compounding is allowable even after the complaint is filed?
These three appeals being ITA No. 310/09, 1115/10 and 358/11 are preferred against the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟ for short) dated 22/08/08, 17/06/2009 and 16/07/2010 relating to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007- 08 respectively.
Teracom Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the term “begins to manufacture or produce articles or things” has been interpreted to mean the manufacture or production for the purpose of commerce and not for the purpose of testing.
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.
