Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

On merits, s. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation in respect of know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The term “commercial rights” are such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying on business and commerce. “Commerce” is a wide term which encompasses many a facet. Accordingly, any right obtained for carrying on business with effectiveness comes within the sweep of meaning of “intangible asset”. Goodwill, being the positive reputation built by a person over a period of time is of “similar nature” as the other items enumerated in the definition of “intangible assets

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 16, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Pursuant to the insertion of the concept of “block of assets” w.e.f. 1.04.1988, depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the “block of assets” and individual assets lose their identity upon introduction into the block. The department’s argument that user of each and every asset is essential is not acceptable because it would mean that the assessee has to maintain the details of each asset separately and this would frustrate the very purpose for which the amendment was brought about. The Revenue is not put to any loss by adopting such method because when the asset is sold, it results in taxable STCG

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The fact that the international transactions are at ALP does not mean that no addition can be made on the funds kept by the assessee with the AE. If the assessee had received funds within the normal period, it could have earned interest on the same. The potential loss is a factor to be considered while evaluating the financial impact of the international transactions between the assessee and the AE. However, a reasonable period has to be provided as interest-free period

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The second Proviso to s. 92C (2) (as substituted by F (No. 2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.09) clearly shows that if the difference is less than 5% then the actual price paid should be considered as arm’s length price. The TPO as well as CIT (A) have clearly observed that difference in respect of these two items is 4% and, therefore, same has to be reckoned in terms of second proviso. Similar view was taken in the case of Sony India vs. Dy. CIT by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal 114 ITD 448

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The assessee is maintaining separate books of account for the purpose of business. The tax-free investments are in his personal capacity. As the AO has not disallowed any expenditure of personal nature out of the business income, the expenditure claimed in the business of share dealings cannot be correlated to the incomes earned in personal capacity that too on dividend, PPF interest and tax free interest on RBI bonds. Accordingly, the estimation of expenditure of Rs. 20,000 out of business expenditure as being incurred for earning tax free income is not acceptable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 10, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The argument of the Revenue that s. 80IA(9) mandates that the deduction u/s 80HHC has to be computed by reducing the amount of profits and gains allowed as deduction u/s 80IA(1) is not acceptable. S. 80IA(9) uses the words ‘shall not be allowed’ and not the words ‘shall not qualify’ or ‘shall not be allowed in computing deduction’. Accordingly, the restriction in s. 80IA(9) relates to the allowance of deduction and not computation of deduction. The manner of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC(1) is set out in s. 80HHC(3). S. 80IA(9) does not disturb the mechanism of computing the deduction provided u/s 80HHC (3). S. 80IA(9) comes into operation only at the stage of allowing the deduction computed u/s 80HHC so that the combined deduction u/s 80IA and 80HHC does not exceed the total profits of the business of the undertaking. S. 80IA(9) seeks to curtail allowance of deduction and not computability of deduction under any other provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though the two contracts were entered into on the same day and between the same parties, the department’s argument that they should be viewed as a composite contract is not sustainable because even assuming they should be read as one turnkey contract, offshore supplies are not taxable in India if the title passes outside India and payments are received in foreign exchange (Ishikawajima-Harima 288 ITR 408 (SC) followed; Ansaldo Energia SPA 310 ITR 237 (Mad) distinguished)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 115J/115JA are special provisions. For purposes of advance tax the evaluation of current income and the determination of the assessed income had to be made in terms of the statutory scheme comprising s. 115J/115JA. Hence, levying of interest was inescapable. The assessee was bound to pay advance tax under the scheme of the Act. S. 234B is clear that it applies to all companies. There is no exclusion of s. 115J/115JA in the levy of interest u/s 234B (Kwality Biscuits Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 519 (Kar) (SLP dismissed in 284 ITR 434) considered)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The plea of the assessee based on Minda Investments Ltd that the disallowance should be deleted cannot be accepted as in the later decisions similar matters have been restored to the file of the AO and according to rule of precedence, later decision passed by similar strength of the Bench has to be followed in preference to the earlier decision

Read more ›