M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (J&K High Court)- The finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the Excise Duty Refund, Interest Subsidy and Insurance Subsidy were Production Incentives, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the assesses.
The Tribunal has interpreted the wordings of Section 35(2AB) and concluded that the Section only allows weighted deduction in respect of in-house Research and Development facility. Any expenditure incurred outside the Research and Development facilit
In a recent decision, in the case Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010-T11-164-ITAT-DEL-INTL](the “assessee”), the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) held that the recording the setting-off of sundry debtors agai
In a recent ruling, in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010-TIOL-670-ITAT-MUM-SB] , the Special Bench of the Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) held that prepayment of deferred sales tax liability on the Net Present Value
Limitation on deduction of expenses under Section 44D of the Act cannot be invoked if the consideration received by the foreign company is not Fees for Technical Services as defined in India-USA tax treaty
Mr. X. held certain shares in dematerialized account with a depository. Mr. X executed nomination in the prescribed form following the prescribed procedures in favor of his nephew (Mr Y). Upon the demise Mr. X, wife of Mr. X (say Mrs. X) filed a suit claiming an interest in those shares as a legal heir and representative. The Bombay High Court interpreted provisions of Section 109A of the Companies Act (Nomination of Shares), the Depositories Act and the bye law 9.11 of National Securities Depository Limited [NSDL] and held that where a shareholder of a company executes valid nomination form in the prescribed manner, upon death of the shareholder (i.e. Mr. X), the rights in shares including ownership rights vests in the nominee (Mr. Y) to the exclusion of other person (i.e. Mrs. X). The High Court further held that the bye law 9.11 of NSDL makes the nominee’s position superior to even a testamentary disposition and that the non obstante clause in bye law no. 9.11.7 gives the nomination the effect of the testamentary disposition itself.
The Delhi High Court has inter alia held in the case of Delhi Towers Ltd. V. G.N.C.T. of Delhi [2010] 159 Comp Cas 129 (Del) that an order passed by the Court in terms of the provisions of Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 approving a scheme of amalgamation of companies is “conveyance” under Section 2(10) of Indian Stamp Act 1899 [ISA]. The High Court further held that such approved scheme of amalgamation would be an “instrument” under Section 2(14) of the ISA chargeable to stamp duty.
Though the High Court was dealing with a contention that the depreciation on goodwill could be a possible view and agreed with that view, the decision highlights that it may be possible to claim depreciation on goodwill where the facts demonstrate t
By considering the potential loss on the long standing receivables as a genuine adjustment in the course of assessment, the Tribunal has reinforced the principles that the concept of TP cannot be that of an exact science and that constant application
As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents.
