Month: January 2008

Archive for January, 2008


Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P & H High Court) (Full Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

While damages or penalty which are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, damages which are penal in nature and in respect of infraction of law are not allowable as a business expenditure. Amounts

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The Sick Inndustrial Companies Act is a complete code and during the pendency of a reference, an industrial company cannot apply to the High Court for sanctioning a scheme under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The principles

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a “business connection” because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii)

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court