ITO v. Bhavesh Prints (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the present case the finding given by the Assessing Officer is that certain parties are not traceable or that such amount is not outstanding in the books of these parties against the assessee. It would mean according to ld. DR that liability has ceased to exist. But this is not the event which has taken place during this year nor is visualized in section 41(1).
CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) – High Court observed that if the sale and lease back agreement between the assessee and the OSEB indicate that the assessee had purchased the plant and machinery from OSEB for a price and had leased out the same to OSEB on lease rent, the revenue department cannot discard the said sale and lease back agreement on the ground that the underlying motive of the assessee to enter into the said transaction was to reduce its income-tax liability.
Fulford (India) Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The Tribunal made specific reference to the noting of the DRP in its order viz., that the assessee may be justified in claiming that own researched medicine should fetch higher profit margin, may be justifiable arguments, but the same had to be supported by adequate fact and each and every medicine had to be shown with respect to back-up research and development to justify the profit margin.
ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad) If a payment is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit/debt/loan, then such a payment is out of the ambits of the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein the question was the admissibility of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest received from trade debtors.
Yahoo India P. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Payment made by assessee-company to Yahoo, a Hong Kong company, for hiring its services for uploading and display of banner advertisement of Department of Tourism of India on its portal was not in nature of royalty within meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi).
DCIT v. Golflink Software Park P Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The taxpayer was not only letting out its building for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of CIT v. National Storage Pvt Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC).
Voith Siemens Hydro Kraftwerkstechnik GMBH & Co KG Vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The Tribunal observed that even though in the contract between the taxpayer and OHPC, the term supervision has been given a specific meaning, the conduct of the taxpayer was not supported by any evidence to demonstrate that it had done any thing other than „supervision‟ as understood in its general meaning.
G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The receipts for supply of spare parts used in prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils in the turnkey contract are eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be noted on the facts of the present case, the supply of spare parts was indivisible part of the entire repair/ revamp contract.
M/s Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITT Delhi)- The Tribunal held that payment made to ward off competition, under a covenant of non-compete, was to get established in the market and to acquire the market as per the facts of the case. The payment made was of a capital nature but could not be considered as an asset.
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs UoI (Gujrat HC at Ahemdabad) Whether the assessee is entitled to waiver of interest u/s 234B & 234C relying on the circular dated 23.05.2006 in which waiver is given on account of non-adjustment of seized cash by the department against the tax liability though at the time of making of application of waiver such circular was superseded by circular dated 26.06.2006 in which no such waiver was permitted. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
