Stephens College, Delhi vs. St. Stephens College Alumni Association and Others (Delhi High Court ) For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, defendant No. 1 is restrained from using the name St. Stephens College Alumni Association. It is also restrained from using the official crest, logo or motto of St. Stephens College, Delhi as also the domain name http://ststephensalumni.co.in. Defendant No. 1, however, will be entitled to use the name „Association of Old Stephanians‟, subject to the condition that it will display an appropriate disclaimer on its website, as and when it is started under a new domain name, that it is not the official/approved/recognized alumni association of St. Stephens College and it has no connection or affiliation either with St. Stephens College, Delhi or St. Stephens College Alumni Association.
CIT vs. Kotak Securities Limited (Bombay High Court) – Transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constitute ‘fees for technical services’ covered under Section 194J of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while crediting the transaction charges to the account of the stock exchange.
In the present case, the act of providing residential quarters by the manufacturer to its employees was voluntary. Providing further security service in such residential quarters was also an act voluntary in nature. No connection between the security service provided by the manufacturer in the residential quarters maintained for the workers as having any direct or indirect relation in the activity of manufacture of the final product. Revenue Appeal allowed
CIT Versus Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It was contended that mould an necessary input for making the desired plastic components. These moulds have to be replaced over a period of time due to normal wear and tear. The assessee used to purchase new injection moulding machine. Moulds purchased alongwith such new machines are capitalized by it alongwith the cost of new injection moulding machine. However, if moulds only are replaced then it claimed the expenses representing the value of replaced mould as revenue expenses
CIT Vs. Harnarai (Delhi High Court) – In the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
In the present matter it is seen that TDS has been deducted on “estimated income” of the employee, and the employer was not expected to step into the shoes of the AO and determine the actual income. Furthermore, under Section 191 of the Act the liability to pay the tax was that of the recipient, and that while forming this opinion the employer was undoubtedly expected to act honestly and fairly and, therefore, if it is found that the estimate made by the employer is incorrect, this fact alone, without anything more, would not inevitably lead to the inference that the employer has not acted honestly and fairly as held in the decision of Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd.(supra).
Under the provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen services is a statutory requirement. Provision of canteen services being indispensable, it is incumbent on a manufacturer of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory
The present notice to show cause is not one where the question of limitation can be decided straightaway on law without adverting to intrinsic facts. It is also not a case where it can be said that the revenue has sent an indiscriminate show cause notice without proper application of mind. Issues require to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the show cause on the grounds urged cannot be lanceted.
The Metal Rolling Works Ltd. V/s. CIT (Bombay High Court)- The development agreement did contain a clause to that effect and, therefore, since the last instalment was not received in AY 2002-03, the assessee was justified in not offering the capital gains to tax in AY 2002-03 in the original return of income filed on 31/10/2002. Although Rs.6 crores received initially was not offered to tax in the original return filed for AY 2002-03, it is not in dispute that in the original returns filed for AY 2002-03 the assessee did disclose receipt of Rs.6 crores as advance on account of development agreement entered into with a developer in respect of its land. Once the receipt of Rs.6 crores was disclosed in the original return of income as advance receipt under the development agreement entered into with the developer, the assessee cannot be said to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The contention that this benefit is not available to assessee whose total income is assessed u/s 115JB has no substance. In other words, when the total income is assessed u/s 115JB has no substance. In other words when the total income is assessed and the tax chargeable is computed, it is from that tax which is chargeable, the tax paid under section 88 is given deduction, by way of rebate, under section 87 of the Act. This is the legislative intent. That is a promise to give deduction of the tax already paid. This is the mode in which tax already paid is handed back at the time of final computation.
