DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
CIT Vs. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is limited to determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO, on a suo moto basis, cannot take cognizance of any other international transaction not specifically referred to him by the AO.
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Lal Singh And Another (Allahabad High Court) – Assessment of giving precedence to cases on the facts and circumstances involved is better judged by the Court where the matter is pending so that there can be uniformity in disposal of cases by the Court below without giving precedence to a case which is not more urgent over other urgent cases. Such assessment can be made by the Court concerned and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should file an appropriate application before the Court concerned in the case itself praying for expeditious disposal and give reasons for the same.
In the instant case, the assessee is a Co-operative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Co-operative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By misconstruing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable to non-members.
Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. & Anr. (Delhi HC) – Notwithstanding IFCI Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation towards the Company in its capacity as an Operating Agency and notwithstanding Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation, being appointed as a consultant, towards the’Company’; we find that there would be no breach of the said fiduciary obligation in law and additionally on facts, the former on account of the legal position as noted herein above and on facts, for the facts which we have noted in para 7 herein above i.e. that when Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was discussing the terms on which it would be acting as an advisor to the’Company’,
RRB Consultants And Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT ( Delhi HC) – In the present case, the assessee has not failed or omitted to disclose material facts either deliberately or intentionally. On the other hand, full and true information and details were furnished and given during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The relevant and germane facts were truly and fully disclosed. As per the case of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer made an error of judgment and did not form a proper legal opinion.
B.S. Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Delhi High Court) – At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the relevance of the learned Single Judge noting the conduct of the appellant to resile from what was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.2.2010 when the writ petition was finally heard. Learned counsel highlighted that in the context of the building consisting of a ground floor, a first floor, a second floor and a third floor on a plot of land ad-measuring 182.55 sq.yd. it would be difficult to believe that a family consisting of the appellant, his wife, a married son having a wife and children (number whereof appellant refused to furnish) and an unmarried daughter would be occupying four floors and when this was sought to be quizzed from the appellant he resiled even from the statement that he, his wife, his married son along with the family and his unmarried daughter were occupying the building.
The first respondent filed a claim petition before the second respondent seeking payment of gratuity for the period, which he has rendered services to the petitioner’s lorry transport, from 01.04.1991 to 19.04.2007, on which date he had voluntarily stopped himself from services. He claimed gratuity for a period of 10 years and a monthly salary of Rs.3,600/-. The total gratuity claim was Rs.28,800/-. The said application filed by the first respondent was taken on file by the second respondent as P.G.No.90 of 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner.
S M Sundaram Vs. CIT (Madras High Court)- Under section 48(1), the deduction in respect of the full value of the consideration received or accrued regarding the expenditure incurred wholly, etc. and cost of acquisition of asset and the cost of improvement are granted. This deduction has admittedly been granted from the capital gain in the hands of the partnership firm.
CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (Delhi High Court)- Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This interpretation would allow the rule of purposive construction with noscitur a sociis, as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India v. Retd. LIC Officers Assn. [2008] 3 SCC 321.
