S. 32 : Depreciation – Rate of depreciation – FSI – Intangible asset-FSI purchased from Government of Maharashtra- held eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to the Building @ 10% and not to Intangible assets @ 25% [ S.32(1)(ii), 43(6)(c ) ]
PCIT v. V .Hotels Ltd 429 ITR 54/ 275 Taxman 106/ 317 CTR 377 / 194 DTR 369 ( Bom) (HC) ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws . Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975
S. 4: Rates of tax- Lottery tickets –Right to participate in lottery is actionable claim – No sale of goods with in the meaning of the sales tax Act – Whether ratio of H. Anraj is still valid so far as it splits the rights attached to a lottery ticket into right to participate and right to win-former held as goods and latter as actionable claim-whether is a composite right [Constitution of India, Art. 246(3), 366(12), 366(29A) Sale of Goods Act, 1930,
S. 4(1), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 3, 130]
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
S. 3: When is sale or purchase of goods said Movement of goods in the course of import or inter-state or commerce – Deemed sale – when can be held to be covered by Section 3(a) and Section 5(2) of the CST Act, 1956 [S. 3(a), 5(2), Constitution of India, Art. 286(2), Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, S. 7, 74]
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 11B: Claim for refund of duty – Excise – Refund – Excise duty paid under mistake of law – Maintainability of suit or writ petition – Unjust enrichment – Salutary principle – to be held applicable [Constitution of India, Art. 265, Indian Contract Act, S. 72]
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 11AB: Interest on delayed payment of duty – Interest on short levy or short payment – Escalation in price with retrospective date – Attracts interest on differential liability as per section 11AB of the Act
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 4: Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise – Valuation – Related person- Where the two companies/firms etc., belong to the same group then the test of mutuality is established and satisfied [S. 4(4)(c)]
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 4: Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise – Valuation – Dharmada collected along with the price of goods – Not a part of transaction value
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 4: Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise -Assessable value – Appellants selling cars on price lower than the cost of production main reason for assessees to sell their cars at a lower price than manufacturing cost was to penetrate market and this constituted extra commercial consideration – Since price charged was not sole consideration, hence, value was to be determined as per valuation rules
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 4: Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise – Assessable value – Captive consumption – Profit margin – cost of production and notional profit to be added, are to be determined before deciding whether there is any shortfall of duty – Case remanded for fresh decision considering costing principles laid down in Cadbury’s case [Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, Rule 6(b)(ii)]
Central Excise Act, 1944
S. 4: Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise – Assessable value – Captive consumption – Profit margin – cost of production and notional profit to be added, are to be determined before deciding whether there is any shortfall of duty – Case remanded for fresh decision considering costing principles laid down in Cadbury’s case [Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, Rule 6(b)(ii)]