Mohan Meakin Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Merely because the claim was not made out under one particular provision of the Act, but was so made out under another provision of law, the assessee could not be debarred to raise such legal question. It is legally permissible to raise question of deduction under Section 37 of the Act even if it was not raised before the authorities below.
Delhi ITAT in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [I.T.A. Nos. 4008, 4114 & 4994(Del)/2010] held that deduction in respect of expenses incurred pursuant to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme can be claimed under section 35DDA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even if the scheme is not in accordance with the guidelines prescribed under section10 (10C) of the Act read with Rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Tivoli Investment and Trading Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- the municipal value or standard rent is not binding on the AO but is a guiding factor for determining the reasonable rent expected to be fetched by the property. If the AO finds that the actual rent received is less than the fair market rent because of the abnormally high interest-free security deposit, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, the notional interest on interest free security cannot be taken as determinative factor to arrive at fair rent.
M/s J.K. Aluminium Co vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of aluminum wire rods at IGP, SIDCO, Phase-II Samba, Jammu & Kashmir. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed computation of taxable income wherein deduction u/s 80IB amounting to Rs 5,85,84,089/- was claimed. The A.O went through the details and found that the assessee had received excise duty refund of Rs 5,68,41,800/- during the financial year. The A.O by applying ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 225 CTR 233 and the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. ITO in ITA No.255/Asr/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 did not accept the assessee’ s claim for relief u/s 80IB of the Act in relation thereto. When this was proposed to the assessee, the assessee furnished a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 317 ITR 353 wherein this issue has been claimed to have been decided in its favour. The A.O, however, taking support from the decision of the Supreme Court, went on to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of this excise duty refund. On Appeal Honorable ITAT Allow the claim of the Assessee relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.
The company had challenged the government policy of not allowing existing operators to bid for the immediate next terminals. According to the policy, The court asserted that the government has the right to make a policy to prevent companies from bidding for the immediate next terminals so that no monopoly of cargo firm is created. The court upheld the policy. APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India & ANR. (Supreme Court -11.05.2011)
Joseph Vilangadan. v. Phenomenal Health Care Services Ltd. & Anr. – As per the said contract, Contractors deposited the sum of Rs. 10 lacs by undated cheque no.027840 drawn against South Indian Bank Ltd., Palarivattom Branch, Cochin branch with the respondent no.1 as refundable security deposit for the due performance of the agreement. The said undated cheque was in custody of the respondent 2 no.1 and it appears that the respondent no.1 filled in the date on undated cheque as 4.6.2008. The cheque was presented to the drawee bank through the banker of the respondent no.1. Cheque was returned unpaid on the ground that the drawer had stopped the payment. Therefore, notice was issued by the respondent to the contractor as well as its managing partner for the payment of the cheque amount. In spite of notice, payment was not made.
Susi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT – Business losses carried forward beyond a period of eight years could be deducted in computing the book profit and hence the limitation of eight years for carry forward and set off of business losses under the normal tax provisions is not applicable while computing book profit under section 115JA of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran vs The State Of Maharashtra – The Bombay high court has ruled that when a bank account is sought to be seized during criminal investigation, the account-holder need not be given prior notice. In this case, Essar Logistics vs Vinoskumar, the account holder argued that natural justice demanded that he should be given notice before freezing his account. The division bench of the high court rejected his contention and remarked: It would indeed be absurd to suggest that a person must be told that his bank account, which is suspected of having been used in the commission of an offence by himself or even by another, is being frozen to allow him to have it closed or to have its proceeds withdrawn or transferred upon such notice.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.- All disputes are not capable of settlement through arbitration; some by nature have to be adjudicated by courts, according to the Supreme Court. A suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of mortgaged property should be tried by a court and not by arbitral tribunal, the court stated in the judgment, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd. In this case, two firms took loan from SBI to buy flats in Mumbai and they entered into leave and licence agreements with Booz. The borrowers did not repay the loan and so SBI filed a mortgage suit before the Bombay high court. Booz moved the high court for arbitration which was dismissed. Its appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It stated that a court where the mortgage suit is pending should not refer the parties to arbitration as it is not an “arbitrable” issue. This is so because only a court can protect the interests of third parties. Arbitration deals with only disputes between parties to the arbitration agreement. The court gave similar instances where arbitration should not be attempted, like insolvency and winding up matters, tenancy, wills, criminal offences, matrimonial disputes and guardianship issues.
