n  Supreme Court on SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations - Ritesh Agarwal v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4681 OF 2006]

n  Supreme Court affirmed MCDermott International Inc. v. Union of India [1988] 173 ITR 155/39 Taxman 58 (Bom.) on section 226 (3) of Income-tax Act - Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Atwood Oceanic International [ Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Atwood Oceanic International [CIVIL APPEAL Nos 1218 and 1219 OF 2001]

n  Supreme Court on Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act - Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Director General (I and R) [Civil Appeal No. 1709 of 2001]

n  Supreme Court on Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - Seema Silk and Sarees v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2008]

n  Supreme Court on section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 - M.V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank [Civil Appeal No. 3201 OF 2008]

n  Supreme Court on amortization loss computed under Rule 9A is subject to or not subject to the provisions of section 80 and section 139 of the Income Tax Act - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Joseph Valakuzhy [Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2002]

n  Fringe Benefit  - Fringe benefit tax being a tax on expenditure, only concern of revenue wherefor should be as to whether such expenditure has been made; statute does not say that employee concerned should be a resident of India - R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [Civil Appeal No. 3326 of 2008]

n  Supreme Court on Business Auxiliary Service/Clearing and Forwarding Agent - Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [CIVIL APPEAL NO.1713 OF 2007]

n  Revenue can transfer cases for block assessment - K.P. Mohammed Salim v. Commissioner of Income-tax [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2946-2956 OF 2008]

n  Capital gains - Where purchased land was being used by assessee only for agricultural purpose and merely because in sale deed his only son was also shown as co-owner, assessee could not be denied deduction under section 54B (Punj. & Har.) - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Gurnam Singh [IT Appeal No. 616 of 2007]

n  Residential status - A person will become an ordinarily resident only if (a) he has been residing in nine out of ten preceding years; and (b) he has been in India for at least 730 days in previous seven years (SC) - Pradip J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4291 OF 2002]

n  Power to punish for contempt - Supreme Court on section 11A of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - Neeldeep Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Custodian [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1528 OF 2005]

n  Share Capital - Right shares cannot be offered to outsiders without a special resolution by 2/3rd majority shareholders - V. S. Krishnan v. Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital Ltd. [civil appeals NoS.1473 TO 1476 of 2008]

n  Appeals - Since in view of provisions of section 10F, read with section 10(1)(a), proper forum to hear appeal from orders of CLB is High Court within jurisdiction of which registered office of company in issue is situated, appeal against any order of CLB, including an order passed refusing reference to arbitration, shall lie to High Court within jurisdiction of which registered office of company in issue is situated - Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2008]

n  Supreme Court on section 2(47) of Income-tax Act - Ajay Kumar Shah Jagati v. Commissioner of Income-tax [Civil Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2008]

n  Appellate Tribunal - In terms of section 255(3), a Single Member of Tribunal can exercise his power to decide appeal if income computed by Assessing Officer is less than Rs. 5,00,000, even though same has been enhanced by Commissioner (Appeals) in excess of Rs. 5,00,000 - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahakuteshwar Oil Industries - [2008] 169 TAXMAN 277 (KAR.) [IT Appeal No. 129 of 2002]

n Special under section 142(2A) - Exercise of power under section 142(2A) leads to serious civil consequences and, therefore, even in absence of an express provision for affording an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assessee and in absence of any express provision in section 142(2A) barring giving of a reasonable opportunity to an assessee, requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is to be read into said provision - Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 169 TAXMAN 328 (SC) [Civil Appeal Nos. 2783 and 2784 of 2008]

n  Section 80-IB deductions - Duty drawback is profit or gain derived from business of an industrial undertaking and, therefore, assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB on custom duty drawback - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd. - [2008] 169 TAXMAN 283 (DELHI) [IT APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2007]

n  SAT sets aside SEBI order against Karvy Stock Broking  - Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange  Board of India [Appeal No.6 of 2007]

n  Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Public authorities - Right to information and obligations of - An information, which is otherwise exempt, can still be disclosed if public interest so warrants - Ms. Anumeha, C/o Association for Democratic Reforms v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, 01263 TO 01270]

 - Insofar as income-tax returns of political parties contain funding details, these are liable for disclosure - Ms. Anumeha, C/o Association for Democratic Reforms v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, 01263 TO 01270]

n  Transfer of shares - Transmission of shares by operation of law is also governed by section 111A and, therefore, any person succeeding to shares by operation of law can be treated as an investor entitled to invoke provisions of section 111A(3) - S. Kanthimathy v. Woodlands Estates Limited - [2008] 83 SCL 491 (CLB - CHENNAI) [C.P. Nos. 10, 11 and 12/111A/SRB of 2005]

 - Under section 111(7), jurisdiction of CLB is not confined to determination of disputes between company and shareholders alone, but extends to any disputed question of title in connection with application for rectification  - S. Kanthimathy v. Woodlands Estates Limited - [2008] 83 SCL 491 (CLB - CHENNAI) [C.P. Nos. 10, 11 and 12/111A/SRB of 2005]

 - Therefore, parties are not to be relegated to a civil court, without even examining whether prima facie what is pleaded is a complicated question or not, or whether such disputed issues are or are not peripheral to rectification, or whether such issues would be beyond jurisdiction of CLB  - S. Kanthimathy v. Woodlands Estates Limited - [2008] 83 SCL 491 (CLB - CHENNAI) [C.P. Nos. 10, 11 and 12/111A/SRB of 2005]

n  Double taxation relief - Where on account of rendering services under contract by Australian Company, no technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how was made available to Indian company, payment made by Indian company in question did not constitute royalty income under article 12 of DTAA between Australia and India (AAR - New Delhi) - Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd., In re [A.A.R. No. 750 of 2007]

n  Capital gains - In case of bonus shares acquired before 1-4-1981, fair market value prevaling on 1-4-1981 ought to be taken as cost of acquisition in view of provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(iiia), read with section 55(2)(b) for purpose of computing capital gains (AAR - New Delhi) - Kern Liebers International GmbH, In re [A.A.R. NO. 761 OF 2007]

n  AAR on taxability of examination fee collected from Individuals in India by  American Production and Inventory Control Society, Inc. (APICS)/American Society of Transportation and Logistics Inc. (AST&L)  - KnoWerX Education (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax [AAR No. 744 of 2007]

n  Taxable service - Activity of building residential unit on earmarked plot and making construction as per plan, design and specifications, obtaining various permissions and providing amenities and common infrastructural facilities as contemplated by agreement with customers would undoubtedly constitute service provided or to be provided to customers by applicant within scope of sub-clause (zzzh) of section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (AAR - New Delhi) - Harekrishna Developers, In re [RULING NO. AAR/3(ST) OF 2008]

n  Salaried employees - There is no question of payment of advance tax by an employee whose total income comprises of salary from which tax at source is to be deducted as per statutory provisions and, hence, there is no question of applying provisions of section 234B to such a person who is not liable to pay advance tax - Assistant Director of Income-tax, International Taxation v. Western Geco International Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 4847 to 4941 (Delhi) of 2007]

n  Manufacturing Process Under Section 80-IB - Manufacturing process should be construed as comprising of procurement of raw materials, processing thereof and genera­tion of finished products and persons involved in all these three processes have to be treated as employed in manufacturing process, therefore, a factory manager and his assistant looking after various activities of a unit and being ultimately responsi­ble for production results would be considered as workers em­ployed in manufacturing process for purpose of section 80-IB - Shree Par Fragrance (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [IT Appeal No. 5549 (Mum.) of 2007]

n  Capital gains - Under section 48 benefit of indexation should be given on basis of date of cost of acquisition of asset and not on basis of dates of actual payments made - Smt. Lata G. Rohra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 21 SOT 541 (Mum.) [IT Appeal No. 1883 to 1885 (Mum.) of 2007]

n  Collection and recovery of tax - In case of default under section 140A in payment of tax etc., before imposing penalty under section 221, it is not necessary to serve separate demand notice on assessee in accordance with statutory provision of section 156 in prescribed form - Safari Mercantile (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 21 SOT 531 (MUM.) [ARISING OUT OF IT APPEAL NO. 1546 (MUM.) OF 2003]

n  Interest, chargeable as - A salaried employee cannot know that there had been short, wrong or no deduction of tax at source unless financial year is over and by time he would come to know about short recovery or no recovery of tax at source in his case, time for payment of advance tax would be over ; therefore, there is no question of payment of advance tax by an employee whose total income comprises of salary from which tax at source is to be deducted as per statutory provisions and, hence, there is no question of applying provisions of section 234B to such a person who is not liable to pay advance tax - Assistant Director of Income-tax, International Taxation v .Western Geco International Ltd. - [2008] 21 SOT 549 (DELHI) [IT Appeal Nos. 4847 to 4941 (Delhi) of 2007]

n  Residential status - In order to acquire status of 'resident but not ordinarily resident' (RNOR) in India, either of conditions enshrined in section 6(6)(a) should be fulfilled, i.e., either assessee should not be a resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding current year or he should not be in India for 730 days or more in 7 years preceding current year - Jayram Rajgopal Poduval v.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 21 SOT 514 (MUM.) [IT Appeal No. 7072 (M) of 2004]

n  Assessment - Once valid return under section 148 is filed by assessee, provisions of section 143(2) being mandatory in nature, non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) within time-limit prescribed statutorily will render assessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3), as invalid - Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi - [2008] 112 itd 1 (Ahd.) [IT Appeal Nos. 2268 to 2271 and 2285 (Ahd.) of 2004]

 - Contention of revenue that by insertion of provisos to section 148 by Finance Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 1-10-1991, time limit of 12 months for issue of notice under section 143(2) has been done away with in cases of reopened assessments cannot be accepted - Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi - [2008] 112 itd 1 (Ahd.) [IT Appeal Nos. 2268 to 2271 and 2285 (Ahd.) of 2004]

n  Salaries - Salary is a reward or consideration for services rendered by a person in employment and question of reward of his employment flowing from employer to employee in order to bring same within ambit of taxability under head 'Income from salaries' is redundant - Sumit Bhattacharya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 112 itd 1 (MUM.)(sb) [IT Appeal No. 238 (Mum.) of 2005]

 - Merely because an employment-related income/benefit cannot be taxed under head 'Income from salaries', such a benefit cannot go outside ambit of taxable income and such an income can be taxed under head 'Income from other sources' - Sumit Bhattacharya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 112 itd 1 (MUM.)(sb) [IT Appeal No. 238 (Mum.) of 2005]

 - Stock appreciation rights plan is a method for companies to give their management or employees a bonus if company performs well financially and, therefore, said plan is nothing other than a form of deferred cash compensation, which is contingent upon financial performance of company - Sumit Bhattacharya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 112 itd 1 (MUM.)(sb) [IT Appeal No. 238 (Mum.) of 2005]

 - In case of redemption of stock appreciation rights redemption amount being dependent on market price of shares which can move in any direction at any time, income arises only when stock appreciation right is redeemed ; therefore, income/benefit earned on account of redemption of stock appreciation rights can only be taxed in year of redemption and not in year of grant or vesting - Sumit Bhattacharya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2008] 112 itd 1 (MUM.)(sb) [IT Appeal No. 238 (Mum.) of 2005]

n  Consulting engineer - Before slapping any demand on a person in respect of services rendered as consulting engineer, it should be done only on condition that person who renders such service is found be a qualified engineer - Power Best Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - [2008] 14 STT 88 (BANG. - CESTAT) [Appeal No. ST/160 of 2006]

n  Airport service - Where in terms of a contract between assessee and Airport Authority of India (AAI), assessee was authorized to collect entrance fee from visitors for entering lounge and availing various facilities and lower authorities considering that services rendered by assessee amounted to 'airport service', demanded service tax along with interest and penalty, merely because assessee was authorized to collect fee and remit it to Airport Authority of India, it could not be said that service was provided by assessee and liability rested only with AAI who was actually providing services and, therefore, there was no merit in demand and penalty - P.C. Poulose v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) - [2008] 14 STT 82 (BANG. - CESTAT) [Appeal No. st/misc./328/2006 in ST/259/2006]

n  Event management service - Revenue demanded service tax from assessee alleging that assessee had organized festival, and such activity came under 'Event management service'. Original authority set aside demand on ground that there was no relationship between service provider and clients. However, Commissioner reviewed order of original authority holding that assessee being one of members of festival Committee, had carried out such activity for its clients. Held that since there was no separate contract for entire festival and assessee was only a member of said festival committee, prima facie there was no relationship between service provider and its clients - Phase 1 Events & Entertainment (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax - [2008] 14 STT 78 (BANG. - CESTAT) [IN APPEAL NO. ST/380 OF 2007]

n  Clearing and forwarding agent’s services - ‘Commission agents’ have been brought under the category of ‘Business auxiliary service’ with effect from 1-7-2003 and therefore, it was not liable to pay service tax for period August 1999 to November 2001 - Commissioner of Central Excise v. United Plastomers [CE APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2006]

 - Where assessee had sold goods on behalf of its principal as an agent and its activity involved only selling of goods to purchasers and it was not handing goods as a consignment agent, it would not come within category of clearing and forwarding agent or as a consignment agent to be liable for service tax (Cestat - Bangalore) - Style Cell v. Commissioner of Central Excise [APPEAL NO. ST/95 OF 2005]

n  Bangalore CESTAT on Cargo handling services and Customs house agent - VBC Exports Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [APPEAL NO. ST/272 OF 2006]