H and R Johnson (India) Limited,Versus Union of India – Under the given circumstances of the case and particularly the purport of Rule 22 (2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the proviso thereto, the initiation of a new shipper review cannot be with retrospective effect in the case of a first time exporter.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
There is no doubt that the non-compete agreement incorporates a restrictive covenant on the right of the Assessee to carry on his activity of development of software. It may not alter the structure of his activity, in the sense that he could carry on the same activity in an organization in which he had a small stake, but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income for him and it is of an enduring nature, as contrasted with a transitory or ephemeral loss.
CIT vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 to have that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) binding on the officers of the Income-tax Department. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.
CIT vs Dharmendra Sharma – This decision was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and by an order dt. 7th March, 2007 [reported as CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268—Ed.], the Supreme Court observed that it was concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit provided under s. 43B of the Act for that period particularly in view of the fact that he had contributed to provident fund before filing the return. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Gauhati High Court was dismissed.
The Hon’ble Court held that the fact that parties were in discussions on the issue of payment for the extra work items undertaken by the Appellant and the exact work to be executed where-after the Respondent submitted its final bill followed by the No-Claim Certificate would be “clear cut evidence” to show that there was an accord on all disputes between the parties which was arrived at after protracted correspondence and claims in respect of the disputes settled in the accord could not have been raised and the accord reopened.
The learned Tribunal has noted that it was common ground between both the parties that the income of the Assessee was liable to be determined on an estimate basis.
CIT vs Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.- Citation 199 Taxation 204 Validity of Return – Return signed by General Manager of Company The return of the assessee company was signed by the General Manager (Finance). The CIT(A) and the Tribunal directed the A.O. to give an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect. The company had given a power of attorney to the said General Manager to sign the return. The company had not disowned the return. The order of the Tribunal was not prejudiced to Revenue. No question of law arose.
Amounts were collected as per the directions given by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, it goes to the molasses storage fund over which the assessed has no control and domain. Inasmuch as the assessed cannot utilise the same for its own business purpose, we have also here to hold that there is diversion by overriding title at the source itself
The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days.
