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.
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.
Praveen Soni vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Delhi HC) – On the above issue, the Delhi High Court held that the provisions of section 80-IB nowhere stipulated a condition that the claim for deduction under this section had to be made from the first year of qualification of deduction failing which the claim will not be allowed in the remaining years of eligibility. Therefore, the deduction under section 80-IB should be allowed to the assessee for the remaining years up to the period for which his entitlement would accrue, provided the conditions mentioned under section 80-IB are fulfilled.
CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma – Can exemption under section 54 be claimed in respect of more than one residential flat acquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement with a builder, wherein the property owned by the assessee was developed by the builder who constructed eight residential flats in the said property, four of which were given to the assessee?
DIT Vs. DSD Noell GmbH (Delhi High Court)- Can the Assessing Officer bring to tax the actual profits as per books of accounts, if the same is higher than 10% of receipts which are deemed to be the profits under section 44BBB in case of a foreign company engaged in turnkey projects?
Classic Shares & Stock Brooking Services Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable.
ACIT Vs Ashima Dye cot Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)- After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
CIT Vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Delhi) -In this case, the assessee, engaged in the business of running cinemas, incurred expenditure towards architect fee for examining the technical viability of the proposal for takeover of cinema theatre for conversion into a multiplex/ four-screen cinema complexes. The project was, however, dropped due to lack of financial and technical viability. The issue under consideration is whether such expenses can be treated as revenue in nature, since no new asset has been created.
CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Delhi) – The issue under consideration in this case is whether depreciation is allowable on the written down value of the entire block, even though the block includes some machinery which has already been discarded and hence, cannot be put to use during the relevant previous year.
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.
