The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT(ITAT Mumbai) – The stage at which set off of carried forward long term capital loss is to be given is subsequent to the stage at which income under the head capital gains is computed and deduction under section 54EC is to be given in the course of the latter. In this view of the matter, the question of setting off brought forward long term capital loss arises only after the income under the head capital gains is computed and that the processing in computing the income under the head capital gains must also taken into account section 54EC as well.
Humanity & another Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. (Supreme Court) – Several writ petitions were filed in public interest before the Calcutta High Court challenging the allotment of land given in favour of Mr. Sourav Ganguly (hereinafter referred to as allottee), by the State of West Bengal. The High Court, by its judgment dated 12.4.2010, upheld the allotment of plot of land being plot no. CA-222 by allotment letter dated 17.2.2009. It disposed of all the petitions by a direction that in order to retain leasehold rights and possession of the said plot in Sector-V, Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata, the allottee has to pay the State Government a sum of Rs. 43,25,500/-, failing which the lease deed dated 1.4.2009 shall be treated as invalid and possession of the land shall be handed back to the State Government.
DCIT vs. Nalwa Investments Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Though the computation of s. 14A disallowance was not made, the figures of dividend and interest were stated in the P&L A/c. Even the tax auditors did not state that s. 14A disallowance should be made. As there is no allegation by the AO that there was collusion between the auditor and the assessee to ignore s. 14A, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. Further, as Rule 8D was not enacted at the time, segregation of expenditure relatable to tax-free income would be disputable and lead to bona fide difference in opinion. So, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The expenditure is to be fully allowed in the year in which the same is incurred provided it fulfills the test laid down under s 37, and only in exceptional cases can the expenditure be allowed to be spread over, that too, when the assessee chooses to do so as held by Delhi High Court in CIT v Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd — In favour of : The Assessee ; ITA Nos. 1820, 1974/2010 and 5/2011.
The provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD and, therefore, decisions rendered with reference to the provisions of section 158BD would apply with reference to the cases falling u/s 153C unless the context requires otherwise. The Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) after considering the provisions of section 158BD held that:
Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain & Ors. (Supreme Court – 09.05.2011) The Supreme Court has stated that it is the duty of the owner of a motor vehicle to ensure that it was not misused. Therefore, he would be liable to pay compensation for the accident if the vehicle is driven by a minor. The owner was asked to pay Rs 8 lakh to the family of a man who died in a road mishap in this case, Jawahar Singh vs Bala Jain. The court rejected the plea of the owner that the minor, who is his nephew, had taken away the key of the motorcycle without his knowledge and as such he cannot be held responsible. “We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was the minor, who came on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility of causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of the minor.
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Gujarat high court and directed the sale of a wound-up company in Veraval at a higher price so that creditors will get their dues. The company judge had first ordered the sale at a one price, but recalled its order when a higher offer was made by another party. However, when one of the losing bidders moved the division bench of the high court, it confirmed the sale at the earlier price on the ground that a confirmed auction sale cannot be set aside merely because subsequently a higher price was offered by one of the bidders. Shradhha Aromatics Private Limited Vs. O.L. of Global Arya Industries Limited and others
State of Rajasthan Vs. Islam (Supreme Court 24.05.2011) An accused can escape conviction for murder if he proves that there was no premeditation for the act, occurred in a heat of passion, no cruelty involved and undue advantage taken, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench of justices Asok Kumar Ganguly and Deepak Verma in a judgement said that the accused can seek immunity from murder only if all these four above circumstances are established in defence of the crime.
KASTURI & SONS LTD, CHENNAI Versus UNION OF INDIA & others (Madras High Court)- Dated: 24-02-2011 – Service Tax – Based on the impugned circular of the second respondent, the third respondent is insisting for payment of service tax on maintenance charges payable to the company in Denmark and therefore, the impugned circular is challenged on various grounds including that the same is ultra vires section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that when the section itself takes away the maintenance of software from the purview of service tax, the second respondent cannot by virtue of such circular impose service tax, that it is ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution of India, since it seeks to impose service tax through a circular which is not permissible in law and therefore, it affect Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.
The unit in question is situated at Nashik, Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said unit was initially administered by the LTU at Delhi and it is only as an afterthought the revenue is contending that the unit in question would not be governed by the LTU scheme for the period where there was no specific approval. If mere forwarding of the consent letter entitles the large tax payer to avail the benefits of the LTU scheme then the benefits of the LTU cannot be denied where the consent is impliedly given by submitting ER-1 returns regularly. The show cause noticed is issued by the LTU, Delhi to the petitioner’s unit at Nashik. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the show cause notice issued by the LTU, Delhi to the unit of the petitioner set up at Nashik.
