Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd ( ITA no 549 of 2011) held that transfer of intangible assets with right to carry on business was taxable as capital gains and not as business income.
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of ITO v. Mahavirchand Mehta [2011] 11 taxmann.com 194 (Mum) held that the expression ‘liable to tax’ as used in Article 4(l) of India-UAE tax treaty (the tax treaty) does not mean that the person should actually be liable to tax in that contracting state by virtue of an existing legal provision. It will also cover cases where the other contracting state has the right to tax such person, whether or not such a right is exercised.
CIT v Atma Ram Tulsyan and Others (Allahabad High Court) – AO was of the view that the possibility of appreciation in the price of shares of lesser known companies in such short period appears to be remote. On this premise, the benefit of capital gains was denied. Evidently, in the absence of any contrary material, it is but obvious that the assessment order was framed on presumptions and assumptions.
Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KEC Interntional Ltd v/s. B.R. Balakrishnan (Supra) has been pleased to hold that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. In the present case, it remained the allegation of the appellant that recovery action was taken by the A.O by attaching bank account of the appellant u/s. 226(3) on 29.3.2010 on the basis of first appellate order passed on 3rd Februry 2010 and was served upon the assessee on 31st March 2010.
CIT vs. Safetag International India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In the present case, the assessee did not ask for these ‘reasons to believe’. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). In this appeal, he challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, which was the course of action available to the assessee.
CIT Versus Sadhu Forging Ltd (Delhi HC) – Assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking. These receipts cannot be said to be independent income of the manufacturing activities of the undertakings of the assessee and thus could not be excluded from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. These were gains derived from industrial undertakings and so entitled for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. There cannot be any two opinions that manufacturing activity of the type of material being undertaken by the assessee would also generate scrap in the process of manufacturing. The receipts of sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deducting under Section 80IB.
CIT Versus Narayan Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC)- The Tribunal relied upon the case of ITO v. Smt. Darshan Kaur of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribuanl and also the case titled CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries, 180 ITR 319 and CIT v. M.P. Iron Traders 189 CTR 154, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment by invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not justifiable in this case and consequently quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3)/147. It is against this impugned order that the appeal has been preferred by Revenue. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No. 148/2008 titled as Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, pronounced today, i.e., 3rd June, 2011 by this Court.
National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Versus CIT (DELHI HC)- In fact the liability on account of interest was to be deductable only when it gets crystallized into a certain liability and that took place only on this court passing a decree and awarding interest after the date of the award till the date of realization. Thus, we are of the view that the liability did not crystallize in the three assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99,but only came to be crystallized in the year 2000-2001, when this court passed decree on 28th January, 2000 and, therefore, the assessee could not claim deduction for the same in the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. We thus, answer question in affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and consequently dismissed the appeal.
ITO vs. Laxmi Jewel Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before appellate Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monitory limit of 3,00,000/-. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (supra) held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal.
CIT Versus Continental Engines Ltd. (Delhi HC) – There is no dispute that the assessee is an approved EOU unit approved by the NEPZ authorities and there is also no dispute that the assessee was having two units described as CEL-I and CEL-II and that the assessee was making exports. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have recorded as a matter of fact that the assessee was involved in manufacturing of an article or thing and that the mere fact that it was getting some works done on job basis from its sister concern would not deprive the assessee of its entity to be an EOU manufacturing unit.
