Calcutta High Court decision in Exide Industries case (supra). The Calcutta High Court held that leave encashment is neither a statutory liability nor a contingent liability and it is a provision to be made for the entitlement of an employee achieved in a particular financial year. Testing clause (f) with the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of Section 43 B, it was held that the same could not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the original enactment. Section 43 B, it was held, was originally inserted to plug evasion of statutory liabilities and the introduction of clause (f) was found to be inconsistent with the said object.
High Court Show Anguish Over step taken by Central Government to take steps to prevent generation and circulation of black money. The approach of the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal was absolutely contrary to the scheme of block assessment under Chapter XIVB which can be made based on convincing evidence recovered in the course of search as provided under section 158BB. The assumption by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal that without the confirmation statement by the assessees undisclosed income cannot be assessed based on evidence gathered on search is wholly unrealistic and contrary to statutory scheme for assessment of undisclosed income under Chapter XIVB of the Act.
Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the award so far as the upholding the claims under claim Nos.8 to 75 are not seriously opposed and it need not be set aside, urging that the challenge to the award on the ground it is opposed to public policy is against the awarding of claims under 1 to 7, we are not impressed by that submission. When the award is found to be void as opposed to public policy no question of segregation of any part of the award would emerge for consideration
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has also made reference to the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act and also to the scope of the proviso inserted to Section 69C of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01/04/1999. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that film production is not an illegal business and therefore payments made though without accounting cannot be said to be illegal payments attracting explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act.
Issue: Whether the explanation introduced to section 65(19)(ii) read with section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act 1994 providing for levy of tax on service rendered in relation to lotteries promoted or marketed by the clients is unconstitutional as claimed by the petitioners/assesee. Held: After hearing the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel and on going through the later judgment rendered by the Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.21/2009, we are unable to accept the challenge against the constitutional validity of the amendment.
Besides this, we have to keep in mind the object and purpose of granting service tax exemption on handling of export cargo, which is only to reduce the cost of exporters to send goods for sale in international markets at competitive rates. In fact all kinds of incentives such as tax and duty exemptions are allowed for export cargo to make the Indian goods competitive in international markets.
Joseph George and Co. Vs. ITO (2010) 328 ITR 161 (Kerala High Court)- On the above issue, it was decided that while lodging is a business, however, letting out of building to the bank on long-term lease could not be treated as business. Therefore, the rental income from bank has to be assessed as income from house property.
B. Raveendran Pillai Vs. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 531 (Kerala HC)- Under section 32(1)(ii), depreciation is allowable on intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, license, franchise, or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature.
Federal Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 319 (Kerala High Court) – On this issue, the High Court held that the rate of depreciation of 60% is available to computers and there is no ground to treat the communication equipment as computers. Hence, EPABX and mobile phones are not computers and therefore, are not entitled to higher depreciation at 60%.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs Electronic Controls & Discharge Systems (P) Ltd [2011] 13 Taxmann.com 193 (Kerala High Court)- Benefit of deduction under Section 10A is not available in respect of sales made to a unit in Special Economic Zone even though such sales are considered as ‘deemed exports’ under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.
