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.
Rajendra G. Shah V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distributiohn Company Limited (Bombay High Court) -The petitioner had thus admitted even in the plaint in the suit that the premises were used exclusively for the purpose of office not only by him but were shared with another advocate principally practicing in Mumbai. In view of the fact that the suit premises are exclusively used for the purpose of office, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be charged for electricity consumed at the rate meant for domestic use, i.e. LT I – Residential use. The user of the suit is clearly a non-domestic and non-residential. The executing Court below therefore did not commit any error in holding that the decree which was passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 was non-executable in view of the fact that the revised tariff had been fixed by the MERC which make the classification of the tariff only on the basis of domestic and non-domestic uses and not on the basis of residential use as opposed to commercial use.
CIT Vs The Maratha Mandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Interest income in the present case arose on account of giving advance rent to the landlord from whom premises were taken on rent for the purpose of carrying on banking business.
Sahney Kirk wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- In the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the transaction was not genuine, the amounts received by an intermediary cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
Amar R Shanbhag Vs ITO (Mumbai High Court)- There was inordinate delay in obtaining commencement certificate and, therefore, the petitioner once again terminated the Development Agreement dated 17th September 2004.
Though the reliefs claimed in these four writ petitions are different, the core issue raised in all these four writ petitions is, whether any income chargeable to tax in India has accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to New Cingular Wireless Services Inc
Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO (Mumbai HC) The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
