CIT Vs ABC Bearing Limited (Bombay High Court)- The taxpayer was engaged in the business of advancing loans. Interest received from inter-corporate deposits was offered to tax as business income and accepted by the Assessing Officer in earlier years.
Leela Bhagwansing Advani Vs Union of India (Mumbai High Court)- Argument of the petitioners is that under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was payable to the petitioners immediately after the Award dated 30th May 1995.
VIP Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE (Bombay High Court) -High Court has [de hors of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944] power to review its own decision rendered in appeal filed under the Act. Ordinary Courts which have been seized of a dispute in respect of a legal right or liability under a special enactment, should be regarded as having power to adjudicate such dispute according to the ordinary rules of practice and procedure which would include the power to review judgements and orders.
The short question that arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the amount paid by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 outside India as consideration in terms of the basic engineering and training agreement dated October 22, 1989 is liable to Indian income-tax as income deemed to have accrued to petitioner No. 2 in India in view of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
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.
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.
CIT Vs K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Counsel for the Revenue could not point as to how interest on borrowed funds to the extent of Rs.2.79 crores was attributable to earning dividend income which are exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood). Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in the absence of any material or basis to hold that the interest expenditure directly or indirectly was attributable for earning the dividend income, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the disallowance of interest made under Section 14A of the Act cannot be faulted.
CIT, Mumbai Vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.- (Bombay High Court)- The object of inserting Section 10(23AAB) as per the Board Circular No. 762 dated 18th February 1998 was to enable the assessee to offer attractive terms to the contributors.
Nihilent Technologies Private Limited Vs DCIT & Anr. (Mumbai High Court)- A division bench of the Bombay high court has quashed the reopening of the income tax assessment of Nihilent Technologies Ltd after four years. The software company had shares held by Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
CIT Vs Phil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (High Court of Bombay) – interest paid on borrowings utilized for the purchase of shares in order to retain managing agency by the assessee company was held allowable as business expenditure. We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the respondent no.1 is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is correct and deserves to be accepted.
