These three appeals being ITA No. 310/09, 1115/10 and 358/11 are preferred against the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟ for short) dated 22/08/08, 17/06/2009 and 16/07/2010 relating to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007- 08 respectively.
Teracom Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the term “begins to manufacture or produce articles or things” has been interpreted to mean the manufacture or production for the purpose of commerce and not for the purpose of testing.
CIT vs G4S Securities System (India) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)- Payment of royalty by the assessee on a year-to-year basis on the net sales in lieu of technical know-how assistance and the trademark would not amount to capital expenditure and will amount to revenue expenditure. The ownership rights of the trademark and know-how throughout were vested with G4F and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all G4F know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on a year-to-year basis on the net sales of the assessee and at no point of time was the assessee entitled to become the exclusive owner of the technical know-how and the trademark. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee as royalty is revenue expenditure and is, therefore, relatable under s 37(1) of the Act.
In all these three appeals the assessee is the same and even the issue is identical, which pertains to three different assessment years, the factual premise on which such an issue has arisen for consideration is somewhat different. Therefore, we propose to first take up the facts of ITA No.14/2005 to understand and appreciate the question of law on which this appeal is admitted.
Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
Sanjay Ghai Vs Dy. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), New Delhi on 29th August, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Hive Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) – It is not for the Assessing Officer to dictate what the business needs of the company should be and he is only to judge the legitimacy of the business needs of the company from the point of view of a prudent businessman. The benefit derived or accruing to the company must also be considered from the angle of a prudent businessman.
CIT Vs Prem Gandhi (Delhi High Court) – In view of the amendment to section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act which has retrospective effect from 1.6.1994, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is duly authorised to issue warrants of search. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent herein on merits.
All Grow Finance and Investment Pvt Ltd v CIT (Delhi HC) If the debt is not advanced in the ordinary course of business, it would not qualify for deduction as a bad debt. We are of the view that the only condition laid down in second part of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section (2).
Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse in holding that the entire jewellery found during the search belonged to the appellant and not his wife and was undisclosed income of AY 2006- 07 without any evidence?
