Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supreme Court of India)- On submission of counsel that assessee intend to make application before CBDT, the SC permitted assessee to make a representation to the CBDT, within fifteen days under s 119(2) either for the waiver of interest or to condone the delay in filing the rectification application under s 154 on account of a mistake, the interest income was offered to tax and the tax was also paid on it.
CIT vs G4S Securities System (India) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)- Payment of royalty by the assessee on a year-to-year basis on the net sales in lieu of technical know-how assistance and the trademark would not amount to capital expenditure and will amount to revenue expenditure. The ownership rights of the trademark and know-how throughout were vested with G4F and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all G4F know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on a year-to-year basis on the net sales of the assessee and at no point of time was the assessee entitled to become the exclusive owner of the technical know-how and the trademark. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee as royalty is revenue expenditure and is, therefore, relatable under s 37(1) of the Act.
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta) – It was never the intention of the legislature to deprive an assessee of the benefit of deduction of tax, duty etc. actually paid by him during the previous year, although in advance, according to the method of accounting followed by him. If we accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal, an advance payer of tax, duty etc. payable in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him will not be entitled to get the benefit even in the next year when liability to pay would accrue in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him because the benefit of Section 43B is given on the basis of actual payment made in the previous year.
LS Cable Limited vs. DIT – Nothing in law prevents the parties to enter into a contract which provides for sale of material for a specified consideration, although they were meant to be utilized in the fabrication and installation of a complete plant. Regarding the revenue’s plea that as the applicant has a PE in India, the income arising should be taxed in India, it stated that the existence of PE would be for the purpose of carrying out the contract for onshore supplies and services etc. but such a PE would have no role to play in offshore supplies. Even if a PE is involved in carrying on some incidental activities such as clearance from the port and transportation, it cannot be said that the PE is in connection with the offshore supplies. We accordingly hold that the applicant is not liable to tax in respect of offshore supplies as per the Act.
Nihilent Technologies Private Limited Vs DCIT & Anr. (Mumbai High Court)- A division bench of the Bombay high court has quashed the reopening of the income tax assessment of Nihilent Technologies Ltd after four years. The software company had shares held by Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
CIT Vs Phil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (High Court of Bombay) – interest paid on borrowings utilized for the purchase of shares in order to retain managing agency by the assessee company was held allowable as business expenditure. We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the respondent no.1 is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is correct and deserves to be accepted.
In all these three appeals the assessee is the same and even the issue is identical, which pertains to three different assessment years, the factual premise on which such an issue has arisen for consideration is somewhat different. Therefore, we propose to first take up the facts of ITA No.14/2005 to understand and appreciate the question of law on which this appeal is admitted.
Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
Sanjay Ghai Vs Dy. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), New Delhi on 29th August, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Earth Castle Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Imposition of penalty under s 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the assessee is unable to substantiate an explanation in relation to the addition made by the AO in respect of the undisclosed income found during the search and also did not file appeal against the addition.
