Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (Madras High Court)- Section 80-IA and in particular sub-cl. (iv) of the said section which provides for the benefit even in respect of electricity generation plant established by the assessee and the income derived from such enterprise of the assessee, it will have to be held that the assessee fully complied with the requirements prescribed under section 80-IA in order to avail the benefits provided therein. Therefore, the contention based on the interpretation of the expression ‘derived from’ can have no application to the case where the provisions of section 80-IA get attracted.
In Re Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte. Limited Vs. ADIT (International Taxation), Chennai (AAR)- Whether the different periods of the contracts are to be aggregated to reckon the threshold of 183 days under Article 5.3 of the DTAA in a fiscal year in a case where the projects are not carried out for the same principal. We notice that Naftogaz India had given two orders: one order in FY 2009-10 and another in FY 2010-11.
Italian Thai Development Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)- The taxpayer has been computing its estimated revenue as per AS-7 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since AY 2003-04 on wards and the AO has not objected to this method in the prior years. Therefore, as per the principle of consistency, the same cannot be rejected in the year under consideration. The observations in the auditor’s report do not have a bearing on correctness of books of accounts and cannot form the basis for rejection of books of accounts.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs Electronic Controls & Discharge Systems (P) Ltd [2011] 13 Taxmann.com 193 (Kerala High Court)- Benefit of deduction under Section 10A is not available in respect of sales made to a unit in Special Economic Zone even though such sales are considered as ‘deemed exports’ under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs.22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital – the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T.Act.
In Re Millennium IT Software Ltd (AAR)- In the present case, not merely the use is licensed but the licensee is given the right to copy it and use it wherever it is needed by it for its business. The right given for a consideration to copy the copyrighted software and use it for its own purposes by ICEL whenever and wherever needed by it, clearly attracts the definition of royalty to the consideration paid by ICEL to the applicant, though the right granted may be limited and does not take in a right to further transfer the right or its use.
CIT Vs Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court)- From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order has been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT as the case may be whichever period expires later. The proviso to section 275(1)(a) has only had the effect of extending the period of imposing penalty from six months to one year within the receipt of the order of the Commissioner after 1st June, 2003.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Allahabad high court and held that manufacturers of beer in the state are liable to pay excise duty from the stage of fermentation and not when beer was fit for human consumption. Mohan Meakin Breweries and other distilleries had challenged the imposition of duty from the stage of fermentation.
Sood Bhandari & Co. Vs. CBDT (P & H HC)- Section 40(b)(ii ) contemplates the authorization of remuneration or interest. The authorization does not mean an agreement to pay, but to quantify the amount of salary or the rate of interest payable to the partners. If the said aspects are not determined prior to the financial year, the same are capable of adjustment at the end of the financial year keeping in view the profits earned with a view to increase expenditure and reduce income.
Yograj Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC ruled that where the seat of arbitration was Singapore, rules governing the arbitration were of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the substantive law of contract was Indian law, then Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) was excluded by implication.
