Prakash Securities Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Asst. Comm. of Income Tax The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the IT Act. Under the provisions of Section 14(2) and 14(3), expenses relating to exempt income are required to be computed as per method prescribed by the Government. The Government has since notified the method in the form of Rule 8D w.e.f. 1.4.2008.
CCE Vs. M/s. Food & Healthcare Specialities & ANR.(Supreme Court) – In the present case, as aforesaid, neither did the Tribunal address this aspect of the matter, nor did it consider whether the Assessee and Heinz are related persons. It based its decision solely on the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority ‘that the status of the Assessee was not better than that of a hired labour’.
CIT vs. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)- During the assessment year, the assessee returned an Income of Rs.2,25,04,588 from service charges. The assessee had a loss of Rs.02,23,32,127 in share trading. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4,79,325/. The assessee claimed that in computing the gross total income for the purpose of the explanation to Section 73, the income from service charges had to be adjusted against the loss in share trading.
Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period limitation, categorically provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess.
ACIT vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai) – The issue raised by the Assessee is that while computing capital gain cost of improvement should also be capable of being determined. The dispute in the case decided by Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) was while computing capital gain cost of acquisition of the capital asset was not capable of determination.
The sum in question was not paid for transfer of any intangible right in respect of manufacture, production or process of cement. The provisions relating to capital gains are therefore not attracted. The amount was paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ and would fall within the ambit of Sec.28(va)(a) of the Act. The payment in question clearly falls under the category of a payment for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which at the relevant point of time of accrual in the hands of B.V.Raju, viz., 27.10.1999, was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
ITO Vs. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Definition given in Explanation to sec. 42, section 293A as well as in various clauses of Production Sharing Contract it does not require to undergo any process of any physical or composition change but after the process of separation of gas, water and other sedimentary elements become commercial commodity. Therefore, commercial production of mineral oil as per sec. 80IB (9) involves the activity of extracting oil from underneath of surface and transport it for sale and nothing else.
The crux of the controversy is whether the appellant which is a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is entitled to have two kinds of memberships as aforesaid. The only difference in the rights of the two kinds of members is that while the Member Exporters have a right to elect and to be elected as office bearers of the appellant, the Registered Exporters have no such right.
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
The Synodical Board of Health Services Vs DGIT (Delhi HC)-It was held that the principle of res judicata does not apply and for each period the question of grant of exemption has to be examined separately. The competent authority in the said case had brought on record evidence to show that the records and accounts were not properly maintained and were obviously subjected to manipulation which was decipherable.
