Shah Pulp & Paper Mills Limited Vs. UOI (Delhi HC) – In considering the challenge to the validity of paragraph 7(iii), it has become necessary for the Court to advert in some detail to the background underlying the promulgation of the scheme. The scheme, when it was issued initially on 24 November 2005 was designed to promote an expeditious facilitation of import cargo. The scheme seeks to balance the need of the trade and industry for facilitation on the one hand with the enforcement concerns of the department. An importer who is registered as an accredited client becomes entitled under the scheme to a clearance of the cargo on the basis of self assessment.
CIT vs. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) – under Section 80IB(2)(iv) what is relevant is the employment of ten or more workers and not the mode and the manner in which the said workers are employed by the assessee. In other words, irrespective of the terms of employment, condition of Section 80IB(2)(iv) would stand fulfilled if the assessee in aggregate employs ten or more workers in its manufacturing activity. The fact that the employer – employee relationship between the workers employed by the assessee differs cannot be a ground to deny deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, so long as the workers employed by the assessee in aggregate exceed ten in number.
ICICI Bank Ltd. V. DCIT (Bombay HC) – Second proviso to Section 147 stipulates that the Assessing Officer may assess or re-assess such income other than the income involving matters which are the subject matter of any Appeal, Reference or Revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.
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.
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.
CIT Vs Shri Nayan Arvind Shah (Bombay High Court)- Whether the value of the assets, for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the hands of the shareholders in respect of assets received from the liquidator of a company, should be taken at the fair market value (FMV) or at the FMV as reduced by the liabilities attached to it. It was held that the FMV, as reduced by the liabilities attached to it, forms the basis for computation of capital gains.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naishadh V. Vachharajani (Bombay High Court)- The assessee is a marine consultant. He had carried on the business of trading in shares and had also made investments in shares. In the assessment year in question, the assessee had sold certain shares held as investments and gains arising on account of sale of these shares were offered as long term capital gains / short term capital gains, as the case may be. The assessing officer held that the said income were liable to be assessed under the head ‘business income’.
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.
