Interest earned on fixed deposits have an immediate nexus with the export business would be treated as income from business and interest earned on fixed deposits which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business, it would be treated as income from other sources. The court opined that when the interest was earned […]
Fashion Television India Pvt Ltd v/s fTV BVI (Delhi High Court) – The Court lays down important principle that an interim relief to enforce a negative covenant under a contract would be refused if the same would render a party to a contract idle unless it continues to perform the positive obligations under the contract. It was held that mere existence of a negative covenant is enough to persuade a court to grant an interim injunction to enforce it. Under Section 14 (1) (c) SRA a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced.
CIT Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd (Delhi High Court)- Software is nothing but another word for computer programmes, i.e., instructions, that make the hardware work. Software is broadly of two types, i.e., the systems software, which is also known as the operating system which controls the working of the computer; while the other being applications such as word processing programs, spread sheets and data base which perform the tasks for which people use computers.
CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech Systems (Supreme Court of India)- Deduction under Section 80HHC (Section 80HHE also falls in Chapter VI‐A) is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where Section 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits under Section 115JA is clearly brought out.
Stephens College, Delhi vs. St. Stephens College Alumni Association and Others (Delhi High Court ) For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, defendant No. 1 is restrained from using the name St. Stephens College Alumni Association. It is also restrained from using the official crest, logo or motto of St. Stephens College, Delhi as also the domain name http://ststephensalumni.co.in. Defendant No. 1, however, will be entitled to use the name „Association of Old Stephanians‟, subject to the condition that it will display an appropriate disclaimer on its website, as and when it is started under a new domain name, that it is not the official/approved/recognized alumni association of St. Stephens College and it has no connection or affiliation either with St. Stephens College, Delhi or St. Stephens College Alumni Association.
CIT vs. Kotak Securities Limited (Bombay High Court) – Transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constitute ‘fees for technical services’ covered under Section 194J of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while crediting the transaction charges to the account of the stock exchange.
In the present case, the act of providing residential quarters by the manufacturer to its employees was voluntary. Providing further security service in such residential quarters was also an act voluntary in nature. No connection between the security service provided by the manufacturer in the residential quarters maintained for the workers as having any direct or indirect relation in the activity of manufacture of the final product. Revenue Appeal allowed
CIT Versus Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It was contended that mould an necessary input for making the desired plastic components. These moulds have to be replaced over a period of time due to normal wear and tear. The assessee used to purchase new injection moulding machine. Moulds purchased alongwith such new machines are capitalized by it alongwith the cost of new injection moulding machine. However, if moulds only are replaced then it claimed the expenses representing the value of replaced mould as revenue expenses
In our considered opinion, the authorities below were not justified in not granting the set off of the brought forward business loss for the reason that the requirement to file return within the time prescribed u/s.139(1) is for carrying forward the loss. Once loss is determined in the return file u/s.139(3), the assessee becomes eligible for set off against the income of the subsequent years irrespective of the fact whether the returns of such later years are filed u/s.139(1) or not. Sec. 80 read with sec. 139(3) requires the submission of return for loss before the due date.
CIT Vs. Harnarai (Delhi High Court) – In the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
