Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The integral tests for a Cost Contribution Arrangement to be considered at arm’s length are: that the services were availed, the costs have been allocated in a reasonable and an impartial manner and there is documentation to demonstrate the receipt of services.
Emersons Process Management India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Add. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The fact that this company was selected as one of the comparables, by assessee himself, in the preceding assessment year cannot be put against the assessee, as whether or not a comparable is to be included must depend on its merits rather than be solely guided by events of an earlier year – particularly when assessee is successfully able to demonstrate that the entity sought to be used as comparable is not engaged in same or materially similar business at least in the present year.
J. K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. (Taxpayer) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)- In computing the book profit for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee was entitled to deduction in terms of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the Act the adjustment of debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account with share Premium Account and Revaluation Reserve made on September 30, 2000, which is required to be excluded from consideration and accordingly, AO is required to determine amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation for each of years without taking said adjustment into consideration and allow deduction in respect of lesser of two amounts.
Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – The Finance Act, 2010 has extended the time limit for depositing tax deducted at source by the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act from the earlier lesser time available for compliance.
CIT Vs Ms Mayawati (Delhi High Court)- All the donors appeared before the Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms the gifts made, established their old relations with the assessee and proved their capacity to make the gifts. We have noted that in earlier years also they had made gifts to the assessee and her family members, which were accepted by the Revenue.
All Grow Finance And Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Only condition laid down in second part of sub-section 2 of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section 2.
The value of the imported goods cannot be based on the value of the goods in the local market. In the present case, no valid reasons have been given by the commissioner to reject the valuation adopted by the overseas chartered engineer. Similarly, comparing the value of the imported goods which are old and used with the data available in DOV is also not appropriate as the said data do not disclose the age, residual life, physical condition of the goods sought to be compared.
DCIT Vs M.G.S. Hospitalities (ITAT Delhi)- Section 40A(2)(b) – When assessee firm pays hefty salary to the father of a partner, it attracts provisions of Sec 40A(2)(b) but dis allowance can be made without verifying the market value of services provided by the partner’s father.
Ghisalal Vs Dhapubai (D) By Lrs. (Supreme Court of India)- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, s. 7- Adoption by husband -This is clear from Section 7 of the Act. Proviso thereof makes it clear that a male Hindu cannot adopt except with the consent of the wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. It is relevant to note that in the case of a male Hindu the consent of the wife is necessary unless the other contingency exists.
Mamania Family Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Where scrap has direct nexus with the industrial operations thereby implying that to the extent scrap is in the nature of bye-product of industrial operations, the same would qualify for deduction under section 80IB, since it is not clear as to how the scrap was generated and therefore, in order to verify whether the scrap had direct nexus with the industrial operation or its was scrap of other nature, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification.
