R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)- The matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)- Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife‟s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee.
DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
CIT Vs. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is limited to determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO, on a suo moto basis, cannot take cognizance of any other international transaction not specifically referred to him by the AO.
Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. & Anr. (Delhi HC) – Notwithstanding IFCI Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation towards the Company in its capacity as an Operating Agency and notwithstanding Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation, being appointed as a consultant, towards the’Company’; we find that there would be no breach of the said fiduciary obligation in law and additionally on facts, the former on account of the legal position as noted herein above and on facts, for the facts which we have noted in para 7 herein above i.e. that when Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was discussing the terms on which it would be acting as an advisor to the’Company’,
RRB Consultants And Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT ( Delhi HC) – In the present case, the assessee has not failed or omitted to disclose material facts either deliberately or intentionally. On the other hand, full and true information and details were furnished and given during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The relevant and germane facts were truly and fully disclosed. As per the case of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer made an error of judgment and did not form a proper legal opinion.
B.S. Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Delhi High Court) – At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the relevance of the learned Single Judge noting the conduct of the appellant to resile from what was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.2.2010 when the writ petition was finally heard. Learned counsel highlighted that in the context of the building consisting of a ground floor, a first floor, a second floor and a third floor on a plot of land ad-measuring 182.55 sq.yd. it would be difficult to believe that a family consisting of the appellant, his wife, a married son having a wife and children (number whereof appellant refused to furnish) and an unmarried daughter would be occupying four floors and when this was sought to be quizzed from the appellant he resiled even from the statement that he, his wife, his married son along with the family and his unmarried daughter were occupying the building.
CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (Delhi High Court)- Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This interpretation would allow the rule of purposive construction with noscitur a sociis, as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India v. Retd. LIC Officers Assn. [2008] 3 SCC 321.
Suit CS (OS) No. 985/2002 has been filed by Shri Rajender Shanker against his brother Shri Devendra Shanker seeking partition of the estate of their father late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur alleged to be comprising of house No.104, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, investments in FDRs, Units, Shares, jewellery, goods etc. it is alleged in the plaint that late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur died intestate on 7th February, 1995 leaving the plaintiff and the defendant as his class I legal heirs.
The assessee, Rollatainers Ltd was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) due to poor financial position and erosion of entire net worth. Pursuant to Restructuring Package as approved by Corporate Restructuring Cell, the bank waived off the interest and principal amount of working capital loan granted in the form of ‘Cash Credit’ to the assessee. The assessee treated the waiver of principal amount of loan as capital receipt and hence argued that the same was not taxable. A division bench of Delhi HC, rejecting assessee’s contention, ruled that waiver of principal amount of working capital loan in the form of Cash Credit was ‘revenue’ in nature.
