Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)- Facility of providing mobile telephone towers for various service provider – Referring to various judgements of the Apex Court and other courts, petitioner’s counsel contended that petitioner has already remitted the entire service tax due to the Centre.
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
ITO vs. Shanaya Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai) – Merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property; what has to be seen is what was the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is found, applying such test, that main intention is for letting out the property, or any part thereof, the same must be considered as rental income or income from property. In case, it is found that the main intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex commercial activities, in that event, it must be held as business income.
Chandna Imp ex Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India) – Customs – Indirect Tax – Customs Act, 1962, ss. 2(34), 28AB, 111, 114 and 124 – Jurisdiction of DRI – Appeal u/s 130E – Undervaluation – Confiscation- Appellant was engaged in the business of import plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. – In search operations, certain goods were seized from the premises of the appellant – A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the DRI u/s. 124 of the Act alleging mis-declaration of quantity/ description and value of the goods – Subsequently, Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods u/s. 111 of the Act, confirmed the demand u/s. 28AB of the Act and also imposed penalty u/s. 114 A on the appellant
M/s. Gammon India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India)- Customs – Exemption under notification no. 17/2001 Customs – Contract in the name of Joint Venture – Import of machine by one party to the joint venture – actual user condition – Appellant and ‘X’, entered into a joint venture agreement dt. 18.9.2000 for submitting a bid to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for awarding a contract for construction of a road in India – The said joint venture was named as ‘Y’ – The bid tendered by the ‘Y’ was accepted by NHAI and an agreement was executed between NHAI and ‘Y’ – Subsequently, the Central Government issued exemption notification no. 17/2001-Cus., granting full exemption to the goods required for construction of roads
Advance Television Network Ltd. Versus The Registrar Of Companies (Delhi High Court) – Mr. Beri submits that the petitioner-company has not done any business since 2001-2002 and thus, it has not earned any income for the last ten years. He states there is no hope or prospect of the petitioner-company doing any further business as stated in its Memorandum of Association. He submits that keeping in view the long duration in which the petitioner company had not done any business, it would be just and equitable to wind up the petitioner company. In this context, he relies upon judgments in Surendra Kumar Pareek Vs. Shree Guru Nanak Oils Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 82 CC 642 (Raj.), A. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Union Hardwares (Private) Ltd., (1997) 89 CC 37 (Kerala) and Registrar of Companies, Bihar Vs. Shreepalpur Cold Storage Private Ltd., (1974) 44 CC 479 (Patna).
High Court held that the scope of powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP) under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is restricted to dealing with only those issues in respect of which variations are proposed as per the draft assessment order and not beyond.
Mitsui & Co India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (ITAT Delhi) – Directors of the assessee were entitled to use the vehicles for their personal use in accordance with the terms and conditions on which they were appointed and the perquisites given to the directors formed part of their ‘remuneration’ under the Explanation to section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of determining their remuneration under section 309 of that Act. Once such remuneration was fixed as provided in section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors. Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee was concerned, it was business expenditure and no part of the expenditure could be disallowed.
Ram Jethmalani vs. UOI (Supreme Court) – SC held that That the names of those individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, as revealed by Germany, with respect of whom investigations have been concluded, either partially or wholly, and show cause notices issued and proceedings initiated may be disclosed; and That the Special Investigation Team, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this Court, shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been disclosed by Germany as having accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and expeditiously conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigations by the Special Investigation Team, the Respondents may disclose the names with regard to whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.
CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed u/s153 (3)(ii) to give effect to s. 263 orders, the AO is required to pass the order within a ‘reasonable period’. Non-specification of period of limitation does not mean that the AO can wait for indefinite period before passing the consequential order. On facts, the period of 3 years & 8 months that had elapsed since the passing of the s. 263 order was ‘certainly much beyond the reasonable period that can be allowed to the AO to pass the consequential order’. As the s. 263 order was rightly held to be infructuous, the effect order passed thereafter is not valid.
