Leela Bhagwansing Advani Vs Union of India (Mumbai High Court)- Argument of the petitioners is that under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was payable to the petitioners immediately after the Award dated 30th May 1995.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Rajesh Kumar Drolia- (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is earning job work charges as well as repairs and maintenance, which are included in job work charges, no doubt it is established that there is commercial connection between profits earned on account of repairs and maintenance and the industrial undertaking but for that source of profit is not directly from industrial undertaking. The business of industrial undertaking had directly to yield that profit to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Section 22 of the Act makes “income from house property” as chargeable to income tax. After excluding such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income tax.
CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- During the Assessment Year 2000-01, in which the issue arises, the assessee had returned Rs. 144 Crores receivable from Non-Performing Assets in accordance with the guidelines by reversing its income accounted for and offered for tax in earlier years.
Anjani Synthetics Ltd Vs Dy CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The assessee’s Counsel did not dispute the Directors’ Report which states that the installed capacity of current and previous year is not ascertainable. It would, therefore, show that the management was aware of the fact that the installed capacity has not been enhanced even if some plant and machinery were purchased.
DCIT Vs M/s Intel Technology India Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- Assessing Officer has by referring to clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 10A of the Act, reduced telecommunication expenses/ lease lines charges from the export turnover but did not reduced such charges from the total turnover.
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Composite water supply which includes manufacturing, supplying, laying, joining of pipeline and includes construction of pump house, delivery, commissioning of turbine pump sets, installation of booster mains, branch mains and elevator reservoirs cannot be termed as development of infrastructure facility as defined in explanation (c) to Section 80IA(4).
Synthetic Colour Chem Industries Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The survey was conducted on 18.2.2005 when the loose papers being the pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 were found which had been duly signed by the partner of the assessee firm based on entries and based on the said papers the partner of the assessee had declared undisclosed income of Rs.1.05 crores.
Mrs. Asha Bharat Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The Ld. Counsel submitted that the DVO has determined the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at 29.62 lakhs as against the value declared by the assessee at 43.10 lakhs.
Saraf Chemicals Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- If the expenditure is made for the initial outlay or for the expansion of the business or a substantial replacement of the equipment, then it would fall under the capital expenditure.
