Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
Regard being had to the language employed and the language engrafted in the circular, High Court is of the considered view that the issue raised falls in the realm of interpretation of the terms, namely – charter agreement . Factual matrix in each case has to be examined. High Court cannot examine and decide the issue in a vacuum. In praesenti , High Court is inclined to think so because the circular uses the terms – where the crew is also provided by the owners of the aircraft as in a wet lease of aircraft effective control is not transferred. Adjudication should take place first and till the adjudication is made, no coercive steps shall be taken against the members of the petitioner-association. In case members of the petitioner-association are aggrieved by any kind of adjudication, they can challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The issue pertaining to the validity of the circular is kept open.
Depreciation on the capital assets was allowable even when capital expenditure on the acquisition of the corresponding assets had already been allowed as ‘application of income’for the purpose of allowing the exemption under s 11.
CIT and Anr Vs R Hanumaiah Associates (Karnataka High Court) – No addition can be made on account of the unexplained investment on the basis of the DVO findings when the assessee satisfactorily explains that the difference was on account of the construction expenditure incurred, which was not considered by the DVO.
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.
