Abhiram Seth Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts :- Abhiram Seth (the assessee) was employed in an executive position with M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd., part of PepsiCo Inc.The assessee was granted valuable rights in shares of Pepsi Co Inc. Employees’ Stock Options [ESOP] held with Barry Group of Merrill Lynch [Trust], USA. Such rights […]
The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of British Virgin Islands. It was previously known as ‘In touch Technologies Holdings Limited’, the predecessor of which in turn was ‘In Touch Technology Limited’. The applicant is engaged in the business of providing and enabling Electronic Payment Services via mobile and fixed line telecom and other telecom services networks. Over the years, the applicant has been conceiving, designing and developing Software Technology relating to payment processing platforms and services. In the year 1966, a new framework for an advanced intelligent processing platform was conceived of.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court last week widened the scope for insurance companies for resisting claims in road accident cases, especially on the amount of compensation.
ORDER- A N Pahuja: This appeal filed on 15.3.2011 by the Revenue against an order dated 31-01-2011 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)- XX, New Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2005-06, raises the following grounds:-
The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have removed their name without sufficient cause and without due compliance of the provisions of law and entered the name of respondent No. 3. From the pleadings it is unequivocal that there is a family settlement and the transfers have taken place pursuant to the said family settlement. However, the same could not fructify and the differences and disputes arose between them which lead to filing of these petitions. However, upon considering the factual position it is apparent that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of law in respect of transfer of shares most probably on the basis of family settlement.
Issue – The question is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made?
MD. Sukur Ali Vs State of Assam (Supreme Court) – In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that the procedure for depriving a person of his life or liberty should be fair, reasonable and just. We are of the opinion that it is not fair or just that a criminal case should be decided against an accused in the absence of a counsel. It is only a lawyer who is conversant with law who can properly defend an accused in a criminal case. Hence, in our opinion, if a criminal case (whether a trial or appeal/revision) is decided against an accused in the absence of a counsel, there will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The combined reading of the Rule 7 and the clarificatory Circular dated 23-8-2007 clearly shows that there are only two restrictions regarding the distribution of the credit. The first restriction is that the credit should not exceed the amount of Service Tax paid. The second restriction is that the credit should not be attributable to services used in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. There are no other restrictions under the rules. The restrictions sought to be applied by the Department in this case in limiting the distribution of the Service Tax credit made in respect of the Malur Unit on the ground that the services were used in respect of the Cuttack Unit finds no mention in the relevant rules.
The contention that this benefit is not available to assessee whose total income is assessed u/s 115JB has no substance. In other words, when the total income is assessed u/s 115JB has no substance. In other words when the total income is assessed and the tax chargeable is computed, it is from that tax which is chargeable, the tax paid under section 88 is given deduction, by way of rebate, under section 87 of the Act. This is the legislative intent. That is a promise to give deduction of the tax already paid. This is the mode in which tax already paid is handed back at the time of final computation.
DCIT Vs. Bihariji Ispat Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- From the record it appears that all the aforesaid transactions were by Account Payee cheques and loan confirmation and also the confirmation for payment of Share Application Money were obtained from the said Ankur Marketing Ltd. with its I.T. File No. and the same were filed with the A.O. For the Share Application Money received by the assessee, shares were allotted immediately after close of the accounting year 2000-01.
