CIT v Kewalchand Pratapchand (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) – From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparent that the Board Circular dt.27.3.2000 was applicable even to the old references which are still pending and are undecided. By circular dated 27.3.2000 financial limit to the extent of tax liability of Rs.2 lakh was fixed, which is applicable in this case.
TRO v Industrial Finance Corpn. of India and Ors. (Gujrat HC)- The charges created against the property, by the mortgaging of the property by the assessee-borrower in favour of the financial institution during the pendency of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be declared as void against any claim in respect of income tax if the same was made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceedings, or without notice of tax or other sum payable by the assessee.
ACIT Vs West Asia Maritime Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) (Third Member)- The contention of the assessing authority that the ship was excluded from the ambit of tonnage tax scheme mainly for the reason that the ship is rendering services only between Indian ports, which would have also been rendered on land by road or rail, is too far-fetched.
Dheeraj Construction and Industries Ltd. Versus CIT – Principle laid down in the case of Mc Dowel and Co. Ltd. (supra), has no application in deciding the dispute involved herein. It is absurd to suggest that even though the finding of fictitious claim is not based on any material discovered during search and seizure, by taking aid of the decision in the case of Mc Dowel and Co. Ltd. (supra), the special rate of tax specified in Section 113 of the Act would be applicable to such assessment instead of the rate fixed for regular assessment.
Power Pack Conductors v ITO (ITAT Mumbai)-When an assessment is reopened on a particular ground but during the course of assessment being finalised, no addition is made in respect of the ground on which assessment is reopened, other additions cannot be made in the course of such assessment proceedings.
Vipin P. Mehta v ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – ITAT accepts the assessee’s claim that he had the declarations of the payees in the prescribed form before him at the time when the interest was paid, he was not liable to deduct tax therefrom under section 194A. If he was not liable to deduct tax, section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. There is no other ground taken by the Income-tax authorities to disallow the interest.
CIT v Kokilaben A Shah (Gujrat HC) – Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.
Six Continents Hotels Inc. v DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Marketing and reservation contribution received by the assessee, non-resident, owner of a trademark from Indian hotel owners with a corresponding obligation to use it for the agreed purposes are not Royalty or Fees for Included Services and they are in the nature of business income and since the assessee does not have a PE in India, the same are not taxable in India.
CIT v Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd. (Bombay HC)- ITAT was justified in holding that in respect of unsold sugar lying in stock, central excise liability was not incurred and consequently the addition of excise duty made by the assessing officer to the value of the excisable goods was liable to be deleted.
CIT v Dynamic Vertical Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Is disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source attracted in respect of payment for purchase of software from a non-resident, by treating the same as royalty in case where the purchase is for subsequent resale in the Indian market?
