Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
CIT Vs Dinesh Megji Toprani (HUF) (Bombay High Court)- The assessee HUF had sold certain immovable properties and out of the sale proceeds received, purchased immovable properties and claimed benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the property was purchased in the name of the individuals namely Dr.Dinesh Megji Toprani and Mrs.Jyoti Dinesh Toprani and not in the name of the HUF and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bhura Exports Ltd Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court, Decided on August 30, 2011)- When the limitation provided earlier in Section 231 of the Act for taking action u/s 201 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1989 and was re-introduced by way of addition of sub-Section (3) of Section 201 with effect from April 1, 2010, there is no bar of the period of limitation for taking action under Section 201 of the Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya Pradesh High Court)- In the present case, Sukhnandan Jain was on business tour and was staying at Govt. Rest House, Sagar from where he was kidnapped.
CIT Vs V. R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- The observation made in paragraph 58 at page 414 of the aforementioned judgement, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for revenue seeks only to emphasise that the assessee in that case, had only acquired access to technology which was not related to any secret process or patent rights and thus in continuum it is mentioned that not even a right to use the trademark or brand name had inhered in the assessee.
The expenditure was incurred by the assessee on ad films in respect of an ongoing business and there was no enduring benefit on the same. Hence, it was asses-sable as revenue expenditure, An expenditure incurred on advertisements and websites for sales promotion is revenue in nature. Computer peripherals are entitled to depreciation at 60%.
Status Home and Enclaves (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in withdrawing the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) merely because the Development Agreement was not produced before the Assessing Officer when the said agreement was duly submitted before the considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no objection in that regard was raised by the Department either in the ground of appeal or in course of argument nor the Tribunal require production of the agreement?
It is not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the assessee that interest earned even from third parties would be exempt from the charge of income-tax, in all types of transactions. The ratio therein is that, if an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application.
Surajmall Lalchand & Sons Vs ACIT- XI (Calcutta High Court)- In the case of CIT vs. H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd (supra), a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a case where the accounts of the assessee, a State Government Corporation, not having been audited by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee’s return as a non est and passed order of assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules – Additional evidence should be allowed to be submitted at the Tribunal to prove benefit received by receipt of management services by the Assessee. AO denied deduction of management services charges alleging that the same didn’t provide benefits to the recipient of services.
