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.
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.
