CIT Vs M/s Mono flex India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- Whether when the property, which was auctioned by the TRO for recovery of tax, is a leased property to the defaulter under a perpetual lease agreement, the right in the said property can only be transferred after payment of the unearned increase payable to the lessor of the property as was payable under the lease agreement
Cine max India Limited Vs Union Of India & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)- While upholding Sec.65[105][zzzz] of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75[5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010, we hold that the provision of Sec. 65[105][zzzz] introducing service tax is not attracted if
ADIT Vs TII Team Telecom International Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- In terms of the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the Indo Israel tax treaty, royalty is defined, for the purposes of this tax treaty, as “payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematography films, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience”.
DCIT Vs RBS Equities India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Rejection of most appropriate method selected by the assessee does not mean that assessee carried out transfer pricing study without good faith and due diligence and hence, penalty for concealment of income cannot be sustained.
ITO Vs M/s Asian Paints Ltd (Mumbai High Court)- Once the authorised agent of the Central Government collects the tax by debiting the bank account of the assessee, the payment of tax to the Central Government would be complete. The fact that there is delay on the part of the authorized agent to credit that amount to the account of the Central Government, it cannot be said that the payment of tax is not made by the assessee, till the amount of tax is credited to the account of the Central Government. For calculating interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act the relevant date is the date of payment of tax and not the date on which the amount of tax collected is credited to the account of the Central Government by the agent of the Central Government.
A notice under section 158BC cannot be equated with that of notice under section 148. A notice under section 158BC provides for a procedure to be adopted for block assessment under which, the Assessing Officer shall serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish his return within such time not being less than 15 days but not more than 45 days as specified in the notice. Therefore, the time to be granted to the assessee in terms of section 158BC is a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 45 days.
The petitioners allegations that their group has been converted from a majority to a minority in shareholding and respondents representation in management has substantially been increased are found to be correct. In view of the continuous effects of such oppressive acts, to undo the effects and to regulate the affairs of the R-1-company in future, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- In this case, a firm issued cheques to a person but it was returned by the bank as the account had been closed. The payee filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and two partners. During the trial, the two partners produced the copy of the registration of the firm. It indicated that there were two more partners in the firm. So the payee wanted to make them also parties. The newcomers moved the Gujarat high court for quashing this move. The high court refused to do so. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court order and asked it to reconsider the case.
Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & ANR. Vs. Mamlatdar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) – Honourable SC held that We do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that imposition of penalty is in violation of the principles of natural justice. We find from the orders passed by the authorities that the appellants had given incorrect information with regard to total number of connections given by them. The requisite information was not provided by the appellants in spite of issuance of notices and requests made to the appellants.
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. M/s. Malik Traders (Supreme Court of India) – A person may have a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited for not entering into contract or if some act is not performed, then even though he may have a right to withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/security, in no way, affects any statutory right under the Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own wrong by not allowing forfeiture.
