Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES
GST


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS 2008/Main

AIT-2008-380-HC
Core Healthcare Ltd Vs DCIT, Gujarat

Advertisement expenses incurred by assessee to create brand image is allowable as revenue expenditure

AIT-2008-383-HC
M/s Jagannath Dudadhar Vs. Sale Tax Officer and Others 

Larger Bench: Section 5 of the Limitation Act can not be invoked for the condonation of delay in filing revision application under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act

AIT-2008-391-HC
M/s Ahuja Radios Vs CIT, Delhi

modvat credit has not to be included in the total turnover for the purposes of computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act

AIT-2008-392-HC
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs DIT, Delhi

the assessee did not carry on any business operations in India by letting out the premises on lease or by subletting the same-the provisions of Article 6 of DTAA were not applicable

AIT-2008-393-HC
Malabar Cement Ltd. Vs CCE, KZD
the petitioner submitted a site plan including the factory, the mines and the rope way, which site plan was approved by the respondents. Later on, a question arose in respect of availing of Modvat credit in respect of cement factories, as to whether inputs used in the mines are also eligible for Modvat credit
AIT-2008-396-HC
Tulip Finance Ltd Vs CIT, New Delhi

deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made on account of unexplained share capital-deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- on account of alleged unexplained security deposits

AIT-2008-397-HC
PM Electronics Ltd Vs CIT, New Delhi

allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(5a) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43(B) to the assessee in respect of employer/employees contributions towards provident fund payments which were made after the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Rules made thereunder before the due date for furnishing the return of income

AIT-2008-404-HC
Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The payment for use of “services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source
The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services

AIT-2008-408-HC
Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs The Union of India

The issue which arises is as to the valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944 CEA.

AIT-2008-410-HC
Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs DCIT, Mumbai

"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners

AIT-2008-414-HC
Sales Tax Practitioners’ & Tushar P. Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra & Commissioner of Sales Tax

Audit of Dealers under Maharashtra VAT Act-Advocate and Sales Tax Practitioner can not carry out audit in terms of Section 61 in the State of Maharashtra. The enactment is pursuant to the power of the State Legislation to make law within its competence. This does not attract Article 301.

AIT-2008-420-HC
M/s. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft Vs CIT, Bombay

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the definition of the term "royalty" in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act will not apply to the said term as used in Article III(3) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation of income between India and the Federal Republic of Germany?

AIT-2008-421-HC
M/s Dewan Chand Vs CIT, New Delhi

the payments were not in the nature of payments under contract but had the character of wages. It is obvious that the liability to deduct tax under Section 194C of the said Act, only arises in case of contractual payments. Since the payments were made to the employees employed by the assessee on daily wages, they cannot be said to be contractual payments

AIT-2008-422-HC
Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd. Vs DIT, New Delhi

whether the services rendered by the non-resident company “Noble Denton and Associates Ltd, (NDAL), UAE” for the transportation and jacking up of rigs, review of design and issuance of suitability certificate is covered under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 thereto or under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AIT-2008-424-HC
Gal Offshore Services Ltd. Vs CIT, Bombay

there was a lacunae in section 33AC(1) of the said Act because of which the assessee was in a position to claim deduction even in respect of its income from the activities other than shipping and this lacunae was corrected only by introducing an amendment to section 33AC with effect from 1st April, 1996

AIT-2008-425-HC
Mantec Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs CIT, New Delhi

the assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act, for the first time, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),

AIT-2008-426-HC
M/s. Shree Ganesh Dyeing & Printing Works Vs CCE & Customs, Ahmedabad

if the record reveals, and the Tribunal on ascertainment finds, that an appeal has been preferred by Commr. or the authorised officer without any prior formation of opinion by the Commr., the appeal would be invalid and cannot be treated to be a valid appeal in eyes of law

AIT-2008-427-HC
M/s Doaba Co-op. Sugar Mills Vs CIT, Jalandhar

additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be levied where there is no positive income, but only loss even after adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

AIT-2008-429-HC
M/s Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant Vs ACIT, Mumbai

The impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal after more than four months from the date of hearing without dealing with propositions and case laws relied by the Appellant suffers from non application of mind and non consideration of material on record and therefore bad in law

AIT-2008-430-HC
Binani Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

both Commr. (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently found that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts as on the date of clearance of the imports in as much as the license was valid at the time of import. Accordingly, the demand based on an exercise within the larger period of limitation was not permissible as the same was barred by limitation

AIT-2008-432-HC
M/s DCM Sriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi

ITAT was correct in law in reducing the amount of Rs 41.88 crores allegedly claimed by the assessee as profit from business of generation of power while computing book profit under Section 115JA of the Act.

AIT-2008-434-HC
Monnet Industries Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi

whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee in the sum of Rs 5,66,79,270/- as revenue expenditure in connection with setting up of the sugar plant at Muzaffarnagar in the State of U.P.

AIT-2008-435-HC
DELHI BRASS and METAL WORKS Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi

whether the interest earned on fixed deposits kept by the respondent/assessee with the bank would enter the ring of profits under the provisions of Section 80 HHC of the Act.  whether the respondent/assessee ought to be allowed the benefit of “netting” i.e. a set off, in respect of, interest received on fixed deposits kept with the bank, against the, interest paid to the bank on over draft facilities availed by the respondent/assessee from the bank.

AIT-2008-437-HC
Hughes Software Systems Limited Vs CIT, New Delhi

allowability of direct expenses said to have been incurred by the assessee in respect of a project known as the Jakarta Project in Indonesia

AIT-2008-438-HC
Subodh Kumar Bhargava Vs CIT, New Delhi

the tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act

AIT-2008-439-HC
Harkaran Das Ved Pal Vs CIT, New Delhi

the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158 BFA (2) of the said Act

AIT-2008-442-HC
EDS Electronics Data Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, New Delhi
the payment made to expatriates in the sum of Rs 4,03,31,726/- to be treated as an accrued liability in the year in question
AIT-2008-443-HC
Cosmos International Vs CIT, New Delhi
interest earned on fixed deposits for the purpose of availing of credit facilities from the bank, does not have an immediate nexus with the export business and therefore has to necessarily be treated as income from other sources and not business income
AIT-2008-444-HC
Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi

Allowance of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act on an income which, according to the Revenue, arose to the respondent/assessee from its industrial undertaking located in Agartala unit, due to refund of excise duty amounting to Rs 24,87,81,499/- and not by way of a profit derived from “any business” of the said industrial undertaking.

AIT-2008-446-HC
Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry in India Vs. DCIT, Delhi

The order dated 25.04.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) was directed to accord registration to the assessee society under Section 12A of the said Act.

AIT-2008-447-HC
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs Union of India

The very purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company. This being the dominant purpose of the transaction, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.

AIT-2008-448-HC
M/s Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs CIT, New Delhi

Larger Bench: power to impose penalty under Section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. It is true that mere absence of the words “I am satisfied” may not be fatal but such a satisfaction must be spelt out from the order of the Assessing Authority as to the concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the absence of a clear finding as to the concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars, the initiation of penalty proceedings will be without jurisdiction

AIT-2008-459-HC
Soul Vs DCIT, Delhi
the assessed income is approximately 74 times the returned income and obviously this would fall within the expression "unreasonably high pitched"
AIT-2008-460-HC
M/s Oil Ltd. C/o M/s Nangia & Co. Vs CIT, Dehradun
where it is the duty of the non resident foreign company, who engaged the individual assessee, who is non resident foreign company, to deduct the tax at source, the individual assessee cannot be made liable to pay the interest under Section 234B for default on the part of the company who engaged or employed such individual
AIT-2008-461-HC
M/s PI Industries Ltd. Vs CIT, Udaipur
Tribunal was not in error in allowing the entire claim of deduction under Section 37(1) of the amount paid by the assessee towards the dues of its employees whose services were brought to an end under the VRS
AIT-2008-464-HC
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act-exemption from payment of tax the purport of the clause would be that if the party had acquired a substantial portion of the necessary plant and machinery or placed firm orders in this regard before 1.1.2000 alone, it could be held entitled to the benefit of exemption

AIT-2008-465-HC
Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi
the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice
AIT-2008-468-HC
Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra Vs CIT, New Delhi

amounts received by the assessee were in the nature of capital receipts. We agree with that conclusion because the amount was received by way of compensation for not being offered the job on the basis of gender discrimination

AIT-2008-469-HC
M/s Amit Kumar Maheshwari & Anr. Vs Union of India

where the assessee is registered, even before the commencement of the Amnesty Scheme, and has paid all dues of tax and interest, before the cut off date given in the scheme, being 30.10.2004, would be entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. And therefore there is no occasion for this Court to unsettle the settled position, and now give rise to upheaval, to generate litigation, even in the matters, which stand closed

AIT-2008-470-HC
Spie Capag Vs Union of India

Since it is not disputed that the construction equipments imported by the Respondent were used in the initial setting up of the plant, then, as per the provisions of Heading 98.01 of the Tariff Act the Respondent could not be denied the benefit of the project import

AIT-2008-475-HC
Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India

it is only after enactment of Section 66-A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents. In such cases, the Indian recipient of the taxable services is deemed to be a service provider. Before enactment of Section 66-A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the Respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the Petitioners-association

AIT-2008-476-HC
Rallis India Limited Vs Union of India

mother liquor arising in the manufacture of dutiable gelatin is a waste and not an exempted final product. Therefore, in the light of Rule 57D the petitioner was entitled to the entire credit availed and there was no obligation to reverse credit or pay presumptive amount under Rule 57CC

AIT-2008-477-HC
Moser Baer India Ltd.  Vs ACIT, Mumbai

The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 92 CA casts an obligation on the TPO to afford a personal hearing to the assessee before he proceeds to pass a order of determining of the ALP in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 92CA.

AIT-2008-478-HC
Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs ACIT, Mumbai

Reference to Larger Bench-Whether, for the purposes of availing allowable special deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, the gross total income is required to be computed by deducting allowable depreciation even though the assessee had disclaimed the same for the purposes of regular assessment

AIT-2008-480-HC
Clifford Chance Vs DCIT, Mumbai

income of the assessee is charged on hourly basis in India and utilised in India shall only be chargeable to Income-Tax Act as disclosed in the return of Income

AIT-2008-481-HC
JK Synthetics Ltd.  Vs CIT, New Delhi

the third installment of know-how fee which related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, in Italy, including training of personnel, in Italy is revenue in nature, any interest paid in relation to delayed payments will also, have to be treated, as one, which is, on revenue account

AIT-2008-484-HC
Sain  Processing  and Weaving  Mills (P) Ltd Vs. CIT, New Delhi

To arrive at book profit we see no reason why current year’s depreciation even though, not charged, to the profit and loss account though disclosed in the notes appended to the accounts cannot be deducted from the “net profit” In determining “book profit” for the purposes of Section 115J of the Act. In our opinion the assessee is entitled to seek deduction of current year depreciation from net profit to arrive at the “book profit” even though it is not charged to the profit and loss account, though disclosed in the notes appended to the accounts

AIT-2008-485-HC
Coca Cola India Inc. Vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

application of Transfer Pricing Provisions in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioner and quashing of notices under Sections 148 and 92 CA(3) of the Act

AIT-2008-486-HC
Mr Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT, Mumbai

Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no appeal lies against the order of intimation under Section 246 of the Act and that the order under Section 143 (1) (a) is limited to the adjustment made by the AO and the said adjustment does not include denial of tax liability by the assessee and that additional ground leading to tax liability of capital gain does not arise from the order of the CIT(A)?

AIT-2008-487-HC
Chemical Terminal Trombay Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Mumbai

The expenditure incurred for obtaining the feasibility reports/market surveys had to be regarded as capital expenditure

AIT-2008-488-HC
Assotech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Whether the construction work undertaken by the petitioner is ‘works contract’ or not and whether the petitioner is liable to pay the trade tax under VAT Act, 2005, or not

AIT-2008-489-HC
National Dairy Development Board Vs. ACIT, Anand

ITAT was right in reversing the order of the CIT(A) upholding the taxing of interest income on the basis of the refusal of the AO to accept the change in method of accounting system from cash to mercantile with retrospective effect

AIT-2008-490-HC
P. G. & Sawoo P. Ltd. & Another Vs. ACIT, Calcutta & Another

Larger Bench: whether additional or extra rent attributable to preceding years of account which could not be taxed under Section 22 of the Act should be taxed under the head “income from other sources”.

AIT-2008-491-HC
Parle Products Limited Vs. DCIT, Mumbai

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in not considering the following income viz. Interest on inter corporate deposits, interest on other deposits, Dividend income and dimunition in the value of investment as profit of business on which deduction u/s. 32AB was allowable ?”

AIT-2008-494-HC
M/s India Crafts Vs CIT, New Delhi

Whether satisfaction of the officer, initiating the proceedings under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act can be said to have been recorded even in cases where satisfaction is not recorded in specific terms but not otherwise discernable from the order passed by the authority

AIT-2008-498-HC
Excel Crop Care Ltd Vs. CCE, Gujarat

the mobile service provider, who is liable to pay Service tax, and recovers the same by adding such Service tax in his bill, is the person providing taxable service and is rendering ‘output service’ so as to constitute ‘input service’ in hands of respondent assessee

High Court Judgments 2008   Page1  Page2  Page3
 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments