Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Even for the pre-Rule8D period, whenever the issue of section 14A arises before an Assessing Officer, he has, first of all, to ascertain the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. Even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incuured in relation to income which does not form part of total income, the assessing officer will have to verify the correcteness of such claim.
Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) – In the present case, as already noticed, the Income-tax Officer, Azamgarh, subsequent to the completion of the original assessment proceedings, on making an enquiry from the jurisdictional Income-tax Officer at Calcutta, learnt that the Calcutta company from whom the assessee claimed to have borrowed the loan of Rs. 50,000 in cash had not really lent any money but only its name to cover up a bogus transaction and, after recording his satisfaction as required by the provisions of section 147 of the Act, proposed to reopen the assessment proceedings.
ACIT Vs Modi Revlon Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) – When non-resident technology partner does not pass on proprietary right to assessee on transfer of knowhow, the royalty paid by the assessee under a knowhow transfer agreement is revenue expenditure
DCIT Vs. M/s CMR Design Automation Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Assessee was paying Shri Mahesh Chandra as share holder a sum of Rs. 25 lacs per annum as salary. This compared very favourably with the salary being disbursed in the industry in which the assessee was placed. Moreover, all disbursements to Sh. Mahesh Chandra was cleared by Board Resolutions. The profit of the assessee company has also arisen phenomenally during the year. In other words, commission and bonus paid to Sh. Mahesh Chandra was an incentive, which was directly related to the profitability of the company.
We are of opinion that there is ample power under section 5A of the State Act enabling the Chief Commissioner to specify the single point at which tax may be levied in a series of sales. This can, however, be done by him only by a notification in the Official Gazette. No such notification has been placed before us which could relate to the assessment year under consideration.
Vipul Medcorp TPA Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBDT (Delhi High Court)-The High Court held that payments made by the insurance company or the TPAs could be in the nature of business expenditure as per accounts/books maintained by them. However, tax has to be deducted under Section 194J of the Act if the payment is made to a resident person towards fees for professional services. Further, the nature of payment in the hands of the payee/recipient is relevant and that determines whether tax needs to be deducted or not. Section 194J of the Act does not specify that the payer must have availed and taken benefit of the professional services.
Sood Brij & Associates vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) -On reading the supplementary partnership deed, in the present case, it is clear that the remuneration is not specified. The manner of computing the remuneration is not specified. On the other hand, the remuneration payable is left to future mutual agreement between the partners who are entitled to decide and quantify the quantum. Remuneration can be any amount or figure but not more than the maximum amount stated in Section 40(b)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of Section 40(b)(v) are not satisfied.
Interest earned on fixed deposits have an immediate nexus with the export business would be treated as income from business and interest earned on fixed deposits which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business, it would be treated as income from other sources. The court opined that when the interest was earned […]
Fashion Television India Pvt Ltd v/s fTV BVI (Delhi High Court) – The Court lays down important principle that an interim relief to enforce a negative covenant under a contract would be refused if the same would render a party to a contract idle unless it continues to perform the positive obligations under the contract. It was held that mere existence of a negative covenant is enough to persuade a court to grant an interim injunction to enforce it. Under Section 14 (1) (c) SRA a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced.
CIT Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd (Delhi High Court)- Software is nothing but another word for computer programmes, i.e., instructions, that make the hardware work. Software is broadly of two types, i.e., the systems software, which is also known as the operating system which controls the working of the computer; while the other being applications such as word processing programs, spread sheets and data base which perform the tasks for which people use computers.
