Karntaka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Whether the expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance of residential quarters of the staff which were owned by the assessee company can be treated as a benefit given to the employees and is covered under clause (E) of subsection (2) of section 115WB relating to employees’ welfare – Whether the Board circular which provides that even the indirect expenditure which benefit employees’ welfare is covered under FBT is not applicable as the expenditure incurred by the assessee to upkeep its assets doesn’t mean even remotely that the benefits were provided to employees either directly or indirectly. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (Delhi High Court)- Payment made by the assessee on settlement of dispute with a company of USA being neither a fine or a penalty for a proved offence nor an amount of Compensation of an offence but is merely a sum in settlement of an action charging the assessee was denied and not proved the same cannot be rendered to be inadmissible deduction while determining the assessee’s income from business.
Ankur Cm Food Products (Guj) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (ITAT Rajkot)- Ground No. 2 of appeal of revenue is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.7,01,1 19 on account of excess stock of packing material. During the course of survey at factory premises empty bags and empty pouches numbers 1,02,98,914 were found against the book stock of 83,39,051. There was excess stock of packing material of 19,59,863 pouches valuing Rs.7,01,1 19. In the statement, Shri Ashok Parekh, director of the company while answering question No. 39 stated that packing material of outside parties for which the assessee is doing job work were also at the factory premises.
ITO Vs Gay Loard Industries Ltd (Ahmedabad ITAT)- Once the existence of the investor is proved, there is no further burden on the assessee to prove whether that person itself has invested the said money or some other person has made investment in the name of that person. Thus majority of the courts are of the View that once the shareholders are identified, no addition can be made for unexplained share capital.
Society For The Small & Medium Exporters Vs DIT (ITAT Delhi)- In a case where the objects of the society may be charitable, but, in the absence of carrying on those activities despite the fact that the activities which were carried on were for the purpose of generating income, the society is not entitled for registration for that year. Therefore, it is held that for assessment year 2008-09 and for subsequent years in which the assessee does not carry out charitable activity, the assessee has been rightly refused to get benefit of registration as charitable institution. The only activity which has been carried out is for the purpose of generating income, which is not a charitable activity in itself. Therefore, it is held that learned DIT (E) has rightly refused to grant registration to the assessee and his order is upheld.
ACIT Vs Bank Of India (ITAT Mumbai)- As per the provisions of section 115JAA(2), the amount of tax credit of MAT to be carried forward is determined and it is not provided therein that first the taxes paid are to be adjusted and then credit of MAT is to be given. In the case of Chemplast Sanmar, cited supra, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held while deciding he issue u/s.234B and 234C that the tax credit u/s.115JA(2) is advance tax retained by the Department for being set off against the tax liability of future years. We are in agreement with the ld. CIT that the assessee is entitled for interest u/s.244A on the refund given to it. We are also of the view that it was a mistake which could be rectified u/s. 154. So from this is is clear that MAT credit has to be given right at the beginning and if ultimately the calculation leads to a refund, then such interest has to be paid u/s.244A.
ITO V/s. Tropicana Beverages Company (ITAT Delhi)- When it is established that the machinery on which depreciation has been claimed by the assessee, had been provided by the assessee to Dynamix for the purpose of manufacturing the product of the assessee, necessarily the machinery was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. That being so, ‘used for the purposes of the business’ in section 32 of the Act is applicable to the assessee.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
Supreme Court has recently held in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. that if a prerecorded music cassette or a popular film or musical score is imported into India, duty will necessarily have to be charged on the value of the final product. As per Rule 9, in determining the transaction value there has to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, royalties and the license fees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of goods. Therefore, when prerecorded music cassette is imported as against the blank cassette, definitely its value goes up in the market which is in addition to its value and therefore duty shall have to be charged on the value of the final product. Therefore, there can be no dispute with regard to the fact that value of the royalty paid is to be included in the transaction value.
CIT Vs K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Counsel for the Revenue could not point as to how interest on borrowed funds to the extent of Rs.2.79 crores was attributable to earning dividend income which are exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood). Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in the absence of any material or basis to hold that the interest expenditure directly or indirectly was attributable for earning the dividend income, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the disallowance of interest made under Section 14A of the Act cannot be faulted.
