the assessee had not obtained any depreciation after the asset became an asset of the partnership firm constituted under the deed dated June 16, 1977. In this context reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhupender Singh Atwal [1983] 140 ITR 928, delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji J., as he then was, who, speaking for the Bench, held that after an asset has become the property of a new firm the cost of acquisition by the firm is to be taken into account for computing the capital gains, and not the written down value of the asset on the date of dissolution of the old firm. Section 50 would only apply to the cases where the assessee had obtained the depreciation.
Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Computation of, in case of depreciable assets – Assessment year 1994-95 – Whether for purpose of section 50(2), where 100 per cent depreciation had been allowed on assets, whole of amount received by assessee on sale of those depreciated assets is required to be treated as capital gain arising from transfer of short-term capital assets – Held, yes
A.K. Balaji Vs. GOI (Madras High Court)- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action against respondents or any other Foreign Law Firm or Foreign Lawyers, who are illegally practising the Profession of Law in India, and for a further direction to forbear them from having any legal practice either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation and commercial transactions, in any manner whatsoever within the territory of India.
Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (Madras High Court) The assessee company, engaged in the business of development, manufacturing and marketing of electro-mechanical and static energy meters, took a bank loan for purchase of capital assets. The grant of bank loan for purchase of a capital asset is a capital receipt and not a trading receipt. The provisions of section 41(1) are attracted only in case of remission of a trading liability. Since the loan was taken for purchase of capital assets, waiver of a portion of principal would not amount to remission of a trading liability to attract the provisions of section 41(1). Further, such waiver cannot be treated as a benefit arising out of business and consequently, section 28(iv) will not apply in respect of such loan transaction.
CIT v. Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 192 (Madras High Court)- The Supreme Court, in India Cine Agencies v. CIT(2009) 308 ITR 98, laid down that the test to determine whether a particular activity amounts to “manufacture” or not is whether new and different goods emerge having distinctive name, use and character. Further, the Supreme Court, in CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 331, observed that the word “production” or “produce” when used in comparison with the word “manufacture” means bringing into existence new goods by a process, which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.
The first respondent filed a claim petition before the second respondent seeking payment of gratuity for the period, which he has rendered services to the petitioner’s lorry transport, from 01.04.1991 to 19.04.2007, on which date he had voluntarily stopped himself from services. He claimed gratuity for a period of 10 years and a monthly salary of Rs.3,600/-. The total gratuity claim was Rs.28,800/-. The said application filed by the first respondent was taken on file by the second respondent as P.G.No.90 of 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner.
S M Sundaram Vs. CIT (Madras High Court)- Under section 48(1), the deduction in respect of the full value of the consideration received or accrued regarding the expenditure incurred wholly, etc. and cost of acquisition of asset and the cost of improvement are granted. This deduction has admittedly been granted from the capital gain in the hands of the partnership firm.
Uttam Bir Singh Bedi vs. UOI (Madras High Court) – The ITAT is a judicial body and under the provisions of Sections 252 and 255 of the Income-tax Act, statutory powers are conferred on the President, including delegation of powers to the Senior Vice President or the Vice President. The President exercises administrative control over the Benches. But, no provision of the Income-tax Act or for that matter the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 confer any power on the President to write the ACRs of the Members.
Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (Madras High Court)- Section 80-IA and in particular sub-cl. (iv) of the said section which provides for the benefit even in respect of electricity generation plant established by the assessee and the income derived from such enterprise of the assessee, it will have to be held that the assessee fully complied with the requirements prescribed under section 80-IA in order to avail the benefits provided therein. Therefore, the contention based on the interpretation of the expression ‘derived from’ can have no application to the case where the provisions of section 80-IA get attracted.
DCIT Vs M/s Sri Shanmugavel Mills Ltd (Madras High Court)- The facts of the case, thus show that the provisions made was not tax payment of bonus but payment, as part of the wages and as an incentive for the performance of the workers.
