CIT Vs Alembic Glass Industries Limited (Gujarat High Court)- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible.
bdul Razzak A Rajkotia Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no material worth the name found at the time of search divulging the undisclosed income earned by the assessee by way of unrecorded sales. Seized material relates to unrecorded sale by the `Compay’ and that too for a period of 18 days from 0 1.04.2003 to 18.04.2003.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s A F Ferguson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai)- The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the instant penalty be also not sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2001-2002. Copy of the said order was placed on record.
General Electric Company Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)- Section 163 really provides only the machinery for giving effect to Sections 160 and 161, and the mere appointment of an agent under Section 163 would be of no consequence unless there is income in respect of which the agent can be held to be a representative- assessee under Section 160 and can be assessed as such under Section 161 of the Act.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)- The High Court examined in detail the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976 (MZA) and observed that Union of India had no sovereignty over the EEZ. The Union of India only had certain sovereign rights over the EEZ. The High Court […]
ITO Vs M/s Mechanalysis (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether when the agency agreement between the assessee and the non-resident continues even after expiry but no royalty is paid during this period, compensation paid to the assessee after many years later for formal termination of the agreement is akin to loss of profit-making apparatus, and thus, is capital receipt?
Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- It is held that redemption of preference shares amounts to ‘transfer’ of a capital asset under the Income-tax Act and any loss on redemption thereon would thus be allowable as a capital loss.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)- It is held that the turnkey contract is not divisible and therefore, the offshore supply and offshore services can be attributed to the Indian permanent establishment; as the project office was opened for coordination and execution of project, the same is held to be a fixed place PE.
