CIT Vs DCM Limited (Delhi HC)- Whether a mere proposal for enhancement of property tax would result in crystallization of liability qua that portion of rateable value which was sought to be enhanced. There can be no dispute that liability does not cease to exist merely because the quantification of the liability is deferred. From the facts ascertainable from the records
CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.
Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court) - The Madras High Court in aforesaid case has held that certain allowances such as conveyance, educational allowances, food concession, medical allowance, special holidays, night shift incentive, city compensatory allowances etc. should be treated as part of basic wages under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’.) and acordingly, provident fund contributions should be remitted on such allowances.
Cinemax India Limited V. UOI & Anr. (Gujrat HC) - While upholding Sec.65[105][zzzz] of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75[5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010, we hold that the provision of Sec.65[105][zzzz] introducing service tax is not attracted if [i] the vacant land is used solely for agriculture, acquaculture, farming, forestry, animal husb
CIT Vs M/s Anantha Gas Suppliers (Andhra Pradesh HC) – In the instant case before us the container mounted on the chassis of the truck is nothing but a gas cylinder and it fits in the description of the gas cylinder mentioned in Appendix-I Part-III (ii) F4 of the Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules,
Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkutta High Court) - We are of the opinion that the term ‘loss’ as occurring in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) of the Companies Act has to be understood and read as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. Then alone the formula prescribed in this cl
Surajmall Lalchand & Sons v ACIT-XI (Calcutta High Court)- In the case of CIT vs. H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd (supra), a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a case where the accounts of the assessee, a State Government Corporation, not having been audited by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee’s return as a non est and passed order of assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
The expenditure was incurred by the assessee on ad films in respect of an ongoing business and there was no enduring benefit on the same. Hence, it was assessable as revenue expenditure, An expenditure incurred on advertisements and websites for sales promotion is revenue in nature. Computer peripherals are entitled to depreciation at 60%.
Bee Pee Jay Finance Ltd v CIT and Anr (Calcutta High Court)- By virtue of Section 11 5JA a legal fiction has been created by which if total income is found to be less than 30% of the book profit, the total income should be deemed to be 30% of the profit and in such a case, if chargeability of interest under Sections 234B and 234C are held applicable only in view of sub-Section (4) of Section 11 5JA, it would amount to adding another legal fiction to an existing legal fiction of Section 11 5JA( 1). According to Mr. Sen in case of a legal fiction, which has to be interpreted for giving its full
CIT Vs V. R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC)- The observation made in paragraph 58 at page 414 of the aforementioned judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for revenue seeks only to emphasise that the assessee in that case, had only acquired access to technology which was not related to any secret process or patent rights and thus in continuum it is mentioned that not even a right to use the trademark or brand name had inhered in the assessee. From this, it cannot be concluded, as is sought to be done by the learned counsel for the revenue that an
Status Home and Enclaves (P) Ltd. versus CIT (Calcutta HC)- Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in withdrawing the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) merely because the Development Agreement was not produced before the Assessing Officer when the said agreement was duly submitted before the considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no objection in that regard was raised by the Department either in the ground of appeal or in course of argument nor the Tribunal require production of the agreement?
