CIT v. ASK Bros. Family Trust -(Karnataka High Court) – It is clear from the above said clauses that the intention of the parties while entering into the agreement dt. 1.4.1994 was only to grant license to the respondent and it cannot be said to be a lease deed. Further, having regard to the nature of consideration to be paid by the licensee as per clause 3 referred to above and the schedule mentioned in the agreement,
Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Central Provident Fund Employees’ Union (Delhi HC)- Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat and a perusal of the records of the
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Girnar Exports (IPAB)- The four appeals are against the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks at Chennai in three proceedings and the Deputy Registrar at Kolkata in one. The mark is Red Label. Application No. 397359 is for registration of the mark which is a label consisting of the word Red Label with a colour scheme of red and yellow in Roman and Arabic character in respect of tea (Class 30) which is the subject matter of TA/47/2003/TM/CH.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
CCE Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court)- This Court has already held in the aforementioned decision that effect of making the registration certificate applicable from retrospective date under the trade mark law is based on the principle of deemed equivalence to public user of such mark whereas such deeming fiction cannot be extended to the excise law and that the same is only confined to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the assignment of the trade mark in question granted in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998.
DCIT Vs. Diamond ‘R’ US (ITAT Mumbai) – Exchange loss on refund of advances received from the customers is concerned, the same indeed constitutes admissible deduction irrespective of whether or not the amount so received were diverted to use by partners. It is so for the elementary reason that the proximate cost of loss having been incurred is receipt of advances from the customers and refunding the same-an exercise which is clearly in the course of normal business operations.
Delhi High Court held that sec. 220(2) provides for levy of interest if the demand is not paid within 30 days of the service of notice u/s 156. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the assessee pays up the entire demand raised pursuant to the assessment order within the period specified in sec. 156, wins in appeal and the amount is refunded and subsequently loses in further appeal and has to re¬pay the taxes. In such a case, as the assessee is not in default in the first instance, no interest u/s 220(2) is payable for the period when the favourable verdict of the appellate authority was operative.
DIT Vs. Rio Tinto Technical Services (HC Delhi) – The payment in the present case is for furnishing of evaluation report. The fee paid is for the said purpose. To collect and collate the information and furnish evaluation report, the assessee was required and it was necessary to undertake certain tests, mapping and studies.
ADIT(IT) Vs Aditya Vikram Global House Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Royalty payment pursuant to a technical collaboration agreement in accordance with the Industrial policy of the Government of India, is exempt in the hands of the foreign company under clause (a) of Section 10(6A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that approval of the Reserve Bank of India is sufficient confirmation that the technical collaboration agreement is in accordance with the Industrial Policy.
Taurus Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It was held that the new export-oriented unit of the assessee cannot be said to be formed by the reconstruction or splitting of a business already in existence. The Tribunal has also held that it is not necessary for the assessee to produce its products so as to become eligible for claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
