Section 65(53a) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 4 of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 – Information Technology Service – April, 2009 to March, 2010 – Assessee entered into agreements with its clients for development of software – Asses see provided its staff who were well-trained in field and who would develop software according to specification of customer – In terms of agreement even before development of software assessee had given up all rights and claims of software to be developed and had expressly agreed that such a software which may come into existence at end of contract period was absolute property of customer
Bidhi Chand Singhal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In our opinion, in the absence of definition of “eco-tourism” the hotel as added into the Item No.15 of Part C is to be construed to be hotel situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal having a valid licence on the basis of No Objection from Pollution Department which can be treated to be a hotel eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as per provisions of Section 80IC. Therefore, we allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-IC to the assessee and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
2. The issue involved in this case is the payment received by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd for transfer of technical specifications and knowhow for manufacture of product called “ZSM-5 Additive” which when added to the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Catalyst enhances LPG yield. This knowhow is provided to Sud-Chemie India Ltd,90, Nehru Place, New Delhi (SCIL).
CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessed to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision. Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the Explanationn offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow.
I. K. Agencies Pvt Ltd vs. WTO (Calcutta High Court) – The authorities below totally overlooked the fact that initiation of the proceedings for reassessment was vitiated for not giving notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act to the Appellant and the notice issued upon M/s. Abhudey Properties Pvt. Ltd. which was not in existence at that time was insufficient to initiate proceedings against the Appellant who had taken over the liability of M/s. Abhudey Properties Pvt. earlier to the issue of such notice and such fact was also made known to the Revenue.
Kalpesh Ratilal Kalathia v CIT- Following the course of action adopted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, having held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payment was not made in terms of the Scheme, the respondent authority is directed to either refund or adjust the amount of Rs.4,74,584/- already deposited by the assessee in purported compliance of the provisions of the Scheme, in accordance with law.
Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors. (Supreme Court) – When partners of a firm issue cheques which are dishonoured, it is presumed that they were responsible for issuing them unless they prove that they were not in charge of the daily affairs of the firm. They have to discharge the burden during the trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Rallis India Ltd vs Poduru Vidya. In this case, the company filed criminal complaints against three partners. They denied responsibility arguing that they had resigned before the date of the cheques. The Andhra Pradesh accepted their plea and quashed the criminal cases against them. Rallis appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court judgement and stated that the partners’ denial of responsibility and their status at the time of the issuance of cheques must be tested during the trial. The complaint against them could not be quashed by the high court using its discretionary power.
Citation – REVANASIDDAPPA & ANOTHER VERSUS MALLIKARJUN & OTHERS (SC) – Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of Illegitimate Child except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral.
Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Merely because assessee transacted in 158 shares that should not be taken as a sole criterion to come to the conclusion that assessee is a trader in shares. It is not in dispute that in the books of accounts assessee has declared the shares as an investment and the finding of the learned CIT (A) that only own funds were utilised for purchase of shares was not contradicted by the learned DR. It was also highlighted by the learned CIT(A) that assessee had not indulged in any squaring-up of the transactions on the same day. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares, in the instant case, deserves to be considered as investment and profit thereon has to be assessed to tax under the head ‘capital gains’.
The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
