ITO Vs Omni Globe information Technologies India (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Business is set up when it reaches a stage where it is in a position to procure business and not before. However, the expenditure becomes deductible from such stage, irrespective of the date of actual receipt of the business. The assessee-company had been incorporated on 19 March 2004 for carrying out the business of the BPO. It incurred the expenditure of Rs 59,24,809 under various heads in the months of April and May, 2004. Although the staff had been recruited, it was not ready to render services as the staff had to be trained with the systems.
ACIT Vs Pramod H. Lele (ITAT Mumbai)- The Stock Option Plan had granted only an ‘option to buy’ a specified number of shares in a specified timeframe at a specified price, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions set out in the plan. There was no compulsion on the part of the assessee to acquire the shares. In other words, the Stock Option Plan only allowed the assessee to get benefit from the increase in the market price of the shares between the date of grant and the date of sale of shares. Therefore, where only stock options were issued and stood in the name of employees and no payment was made until the date of exercise, mere grant of an option does not result in a transfer of shares.
Shri Prashant H Shah Vs ACIT (Ahmedabad ITAT)- It is further important to mention that vide an amendment with effect from 1/6/2007 an individual or HUF have also been inducted vide sub-clause (k) in section 194C(1) of the IT Act. At this juncture, it is worth to hold that as far as the AY in hand is concerned, i.e. AY 2007-08, this latest amendment of section 194C(1)(k) of the Act being introduced with effect from 01/06/2007 has no applicability.
CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Simpson & Co. (Madras High Court)- There must be a nexus between the material at the hands of the Officer and formation of belief that there was escapement of wealth from assessment on account of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts. In the absence of any nexus or any one of the requirements, the reassessment proceedings could not be upheld as one falling under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
Wrigley India Private Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Whether the Tax Officer has, inter alia, erred in disallowing the claim of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the Taxpayer post amalgamation? The Tribunal agreed with the position taken by the Taxpayer by holding that: – The conditions specified in Section 72A(2) of the IT Act are applicable only when amalgamating company has brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. However, in the Taxpayer‟s case, the amalgamating company does not have brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and hence, the provisions do not apply
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
anyo LSI Technology India Private Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Gain from fluctuation of foreign exchange is directly related with the export activities and should be considered as income derived from export in the year in which the export took place for the purpose of deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Regent Granito India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Dis allowance for the discount offered against defective materials supplied can not be sustained- In the present case, the A.O. has merely doubted that the assessee is writing off the amount and giving credit to the customers to reduce its profit but the A.O. could not corroborate the same by bringing on record at least some corroborative evidence. It is also to be noted that it is not a case of allowing discount simplicitor. Discounts were allowed on account of breakage or defects in quality.
ITO Vs Yash Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deducted tax @ 1.12% from the payments made to M/s Laxmichand Dharshi during the financial year 2006-07 u/s 194C of the I T Act being the payment made to sub contractor. According to the AO, such payments made to M/s Laxmichand Dharshi has to be treated as hire charges paid for transportation of containers/trucks as per bills raised since there is no written contract/ sub contract agreement between the parties concerned.
ACIT Vs. Oxford Softeck Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- If it is supposed that all the conditions are fulfilled but then also the same cannot be added as income in the hands of the payer company as such amount can be added only to the income of a person as dividend who is a shareholder to whom such loan and advances made. Keeping in view these facts and the aforementioned case law relied upon by ld. CIT(A) and also the provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that addition in the hands of the assessee company has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) and to that extent we uphold his order and it is held that addition has rightly been deleted in the hands of the assessee company.
