CIT Vs M/s Mono flex India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- Whether when the property, which was auctioned by the TRO for recovery of tax, is a leased property to the defaulter under a perpetual lease agreement, the right in the said property can only be transferred after payment of the unearned increase payable to the lessor of the property as was payable under the lease agreement
Cine max India Limited Vs Union Of India & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)- While upholding Sec.65[105][zzzz] of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75[5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010, we hold that the provision of Sec. 65[105][zzzz] introducing service tax is not attracted if
ITO Vs M/s Asian Paints Ltd (Mumbai High Court)- Once the authorised agent of the Central Government collects the tax by debiting the bank account of the assessee, the payment of tax to the Central Government would be complete. The fact that there is delay on the part of the authorized agent to credit that amount to the account of the Central Government, it cannot be said that the payment of tax is not made by the assessee, till the amount of tax is credited to the account of the Central Government. For calculating interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act the relevant date is the date of payment of tax and not the date on which the amount of tax collected is credited to the account of the Central Government by the agent of the Central Government.
A notice under section 158BC cannot be equated with that of notice under section 148. A notice under section 158BC provides for a procedure to be adopted for block assessment under which, the Assessing Officer shall serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish his return within such time not being less than 15 days but not more than 45 days as specified in the notice. Therefore, the time to be granted to the assessee in terms of section 158BC is a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 45 days.
Madras High Court ruling on the applicability of Provident Fund (PF) contribution on certain allowances. Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court)- The Madras High Court in aforesaid case has held that certain allowances such as conveyance, educational allowances, food concession, medical allowance, special holidays, night shift incentive, city compensatory allowances etc. should be treated as part of basic wages under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’.) and accordingly, provident fund contributions should be remitted on such allowances.
CIT Vs DCM Limited (Delhi High Court)- Whether a mere proposal for enhancement of property tax would result in crystallisation of liability qua that portion of rate able value which was sought to be enhanced. There can be no dispute that liability does not cease to exist merely because the quantification of the liability is deferred.
If two views are possible than Assessing Officers should take the one favourable to the Assessee and penalty for concealment cannot be levied. CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.
CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Simpson & Co. (Madras High Court)- There must be a nexus between the material at the hands of the Officer and formation of belief that there was escapement of wealth from assessment on account of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts. In the absence of any nexus or any one of the requirements, the reassessment proceedings could not be upheld as one falling under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (Delhi High Court)- Payment made by the assessee on settlement of dispute with a company of USA being neither a fine or a penalty for a proved offence nor an amount of Compensation of an offence but is merely a sum in settlement of an action charging the assessee was denied and not proved the same cannot be rendered to be inadmissible deduction while determining the assessee’s income from business.
