De Nora India Limited Versus Union Of India And Ors (Delhi HC) The challenge in this writ petition by De Nora India Limited („DNIL‟) [formerly known as Titanor Components Limited („TCL‟)] is to an order dated 12th August 2010 passed by the Department of Commerce („DOC‟) (Supply Division) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry („MOCI‟), Government of India partly allowing the appeal of DNIL and upholding the order dated 22nd February 2010 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals („DGS&D‟) banning DNIL from dealing with all the departments/ministries/offices of the Government of India but reducing the period of ban from five years to a period of one year operative from 22nd February 2010 and in relation only to tender notices of the DGS&D.
SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ANR Company Applications No. 578-579/2011 have been filed by the Department of Telecommunication (in short ‘DOT’) under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recall and stay of this Court’s order dated 5th February, 2010 by virtue of which amalgamation of Spice Communication Limited (for short ‘Spice’) with Idea Cellular Limited (for short ‘Idea’) was allowed.
UNITED BIOTECH PVT. LTD. Versus ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ORS (Delhi HC) – The Petitioner UBPL states that it is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacturing and selling of pharmaceutical preparations including injections bearing the trade mark FORZID. UBPL claims that since 2002 it took steps to launch CEFTAZIDIME injections in the market under the trade mark FORZID. It entered into a licence agreement with M/s. Oscar Remedies Pvt. Ltd. („ORPL‟), Haryana for manufacturing FORZID injections. UBPL made an application for registration of the said trade mark under No. 1144258 dated 18th October 2002 in Class 5. The said mark was advertised in Journal Mega dated 25th November 2003. The registration was granted unopposed. The sales figures of UBPL‟s products under the trade mark FORZID for the years 2002-03 till 2006-07 have been set out in the writ petition.
CIT v Rajiv Shukla (High Court of Delhi) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee under section 54F on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence showing investment in Capital Deposit Account Scheme under section 54F and that the flat sold by him was a depreciable asset. As per provisions of section 50, the capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable asset shall be deemed to be the capital gain arising from transfer of short term capital asset and, therefore, deduction under section 54F was not available. Accordingly, AO made an addition of Rs.91,77,118/- under the head Short Term Capital Gain.
CIT v Dynamic Vertical Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Is disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source attracted in respect of payment for purchase of software from a non-resident, by treating the same as royalty in case where the purchase is for subsequent resale in the Indian market?
Bela Juneja v CIT (Delhi High Court) – Additions under s 69 was justified since finding of facts has been arrived by lower authorities that assessee had made unexplained investment and there was huge difference between agreed price for purchase of property and price registered in sale deed and no perversity has been shown in such findings. Coming to the material available on record, enough evidence was found by the lower authorities pertaining to assessee from the premises in which she was living that the above payment in respect of property was made by her. The same has neither been accounted for nor assessee has given any satisfactory reply about the investment in question.
CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora (Delhi High Court) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 17
Delhi High Court judgment on Writ Petition No. 328, 340/2010 – Ravina and Associates vs CIT. Stay on recovery of tax demand. Key details here.
CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel- The assessee running coaching classes followed mercantile system of accounting. Total fees for the entire course, which may be of two years duration was taken in advance at the time of admission of the students. For the A.Y. 1997-1998, the assessee claimed that the fees received in the relevant year were to be carried forward to the next assessment year as they related to the next financial year. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.
DIT Vs Brahamputra Capital Financial Services Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When assessee advances interest-bearing loans to a sister concern but declares the same as NPA in the balance-sheet as per RBI guidelines, even then interest can not be treated as realised and the same is not taxable income. The provisions of section 145 of IT Act cannot override section 5 of the Act; if income has neither actually accrued nor received within the meaning of section 5; whatever section 145 may say, such income cannot be charged to tax even though a book keeping entry may have been made recognizing such hypothetical income.
