M/S. Hyderabad Engineering vs State Of A.P. on 4 March, 2011 (Supreme Court of India) -Finally, the Supreme court concluded by observing that following scenarios are covered under “inter-state sales” “Sale” or “agreement to sell” occasions movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of whether such movement has been provided in the agreement) or Order placed before HO or branch resulted in movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of state where property in goods passes). Thus, it is not necessary that sale must precede movement of goods or the fact of movement of goods is mentioned in the agreement [Para 32]. Thus, even an agreement to sell can now result in classification of such transfers as “inter-state sales” and not “branch transfer”.
The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Ministry of Petroleum clearly mentioned 01.04.04 as the effective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 02.05.07, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 01.04.04 should be accepted.
In these appeals filed by the revenue, the only question raised is whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit under Section 11 5JB of the Income Tax Act. Even though in respect of one assessee, the provision involved is Section 11 5JA, there is no need to consider the issue separately because applicability of Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit is one and the same both under Section 11 5JA and 11 5JB of the Act. CIT vs. Packworth Udyog (Kerala High Court – Full Bench)
“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to accept the claim of Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain on profit arriving from purchase & sale of shares instead of business income treated by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that the assessee is dealing in large volume of shares, most of the shares are bought and sold within short period, while some are not sold due to market conditions and their holding with assessee remains beyond few days, it will not change the nature of transactions and the assessee is very well engaged in the business of share trading, which denote that the motive of the assessee is to carry on business in shares to book profit rather than investment in shares.”
Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench). If the application filed by the assessee is viewed in the light of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, then it will become clear that the relief which is being sought by the assessee by way of impugned rectification application is not legally tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon subsequent application filed u/s 254(2). Here, it may be the case of the assessee that earlier order against which impugned rectification application is filed is also an order passed on subsequent application, then the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order was an invalid order, therefore it should be recalled.
he Supreme Court last week reiterated that casual workers cannot claim regularization merely because they have been working for a considerable period of time. It said that the law consistently laid down by it was that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued. “Merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules,” the judg-ment stated allowing the appeal of the central government in the case of casual workers who have been engaged with six-monthly breaks up to 30 years. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Gauhati high court which was contrary to the precedents in the case, and allowed the appeal of the government in the case, Union of India vs Vartak Labour Union.
Interocean Shipping (I) (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India (Delhi High Court) Dated: 03-03-2011 – Service Tax – Ship broking and other activities – Section 65(105)(zzb)read with 65(19) – Business Auxiliary Services – The said services became taxable by the Finance Act, 2003, whereby sub-section (zzb) to section 65(105) was enacted – The said clause has to be read with section 65(19). The assessment order shows that the primary and core issue raised was is with regard the actual nature and character of the activity undertaken by the petitioners.
In a trademark battle over the use of the word ‘Eenadu’ between a Karnataka firm selling Agarbathis (incense sticks) and the newspaper group in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated last week that allowing to sell Agarbathis with the same name would “definitely create confusion in the minds of the consumers.”
on the ground that the respondent has committed a violation of the Original Agreement inasmuch as obligations cast upon the respondent under clause 13 of the agreement (supra) have not been discharged by the respondent thereby giving rise to disputes that are in terms of Clause 15 of the original agreement arbitrable — the Supreme Court appointed a sole Arbitrator and all disputes including the dispute regarding interpretation and effect of Clause 4 of the termination agreement referred for adjudication by arbitration — petition allowed.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. JCIT & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) – Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the sum of Rs.1,43,35,000/- which represents the liability on account of pension on the basis of the resolution of the Board payable to the employee till their death. Whether, the liability on account of pension on the basis of the provisions made should be allowed for the period till the death of the employees or all liabilities should be limited for the period of accounting year relevant to this assessment year.
