CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed u/s153 (3)(ii) to give effect to s. 263 orders, the AO is required to pass the order within a ‘reasonable period’. Non-specification of period of limitation does not mean that the AO can wait for indefinite period before passing the consequential order. On facts, the period of 3 years & 8 months that had elapsed since the passing of the s. 263 order was ‘certainly much beyond the reasonable period that can be allowed to the AO to pass the consequential order’. As the s. 263 order was rightly held to be infructuous, the effect order passed thereafter is not valid.
NISCHINTAPUR TEA CO. LTD Versus SUBRATA SEN & ORS ( Calcutta High Court) – An application under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was filed in this court way back in 1985. It was numbered as C.P. No. 252 of 1985. It is still pending. The petitioner in that application was one Amita Sen, who has since died. In her place, her three sons Subrata, Ranjan and Sanjay are now substituted as petitioners being petitioner nos. 1.(a), (b) and (c).Two applications were heard by me for several days. They were most seriously contested. One of them (C.A. No. 686 of 2010) was an application by the company for dismissal of the Section 397, 398 application. One Ajit Kumar Agarwal, opposed this application as an intervenor. It was strenuously argued on his behalf that the company should not be granted the prayers. Neither, the petitioners in the Section 397, 398 application should be allowed to withdraw from the application. He made an application (C.A. No. 721 of 2010)for dismissal of C.A. 686 of 2010.
De Nora India Limited Versus Union Of India And Ors (Delhi HC) The challenge in this writ petition by De Nora India Limited („DNIL‟) [formerly known as Titanor Components Limited („TCL‟)] is to an order dated 12th August 2010 passed by the Department of Commerce („DOC‟) (Supply Division) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry („MOCI‟), Government of India partly allowing the appeal of DNIL and upholding the order dated 22nd February 2010 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals („DGS&D‟) banning DNIL from dealing with all the departments/ministries/offices of the Government of India but reducing the period of ban from five years to a period of one year operative from 22nd February 2010 and in relation only to tender notices of the DGS&D.
SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ANR Company Applications No. 578-579/2011 have been filed by the Department of Telecommunication (in short ‘DOT’) under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recall and stay of this Court’s order dated 5th February, 2010 by virtue of which amalgamation of Spice Communication Limited (for short ‘Spice’) with Idea Cellular Limited (for short ‘Idea’) was allowed.
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.
