• Sec 80IB : CIT vs. Shoghi Communication Ltd.

[2017] 84 taxmann.com 198 (HP HC)

Where assessee engaged in manufacture of voice and fax encryption systems, imported necessary hardware as well as corresponding software and, thereupon software was customized and modified before loading it to hardware, said activity amounted to ‘manufacture’ of an article or thing and, thus, assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80-IB was to be allowed

• Sec 10A : PCIT Vs. Makino India (P.) Ltd.

[2017] 85 taxmann.com 134 (SC)

From bare reading of provisions of section 10A it is clear that the deductions contemplated is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee

Section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI

• Parbatbhai J. Golakia HUF vs. PCIT

[2017] 85 taxmann.com 83 (Guj HC)

Where AO on the basis of material seized during survey reassessed income and also imposed penalty and during pendency of such penalty appeal before CIT(A), assessee made declaration under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016; however such declaration was not maintainable giving reference to sub-clause(ii) includes survey proceedings and also tax arrears as per clause (h) includes ‘penalty’

• Sec 2(22)(e) Ravindra R Fotedar vs. ACIT

[2017] 85 taxmann.com 314 (Mumbai – Trib.)

• Current account transactions between two entities can’t be termed as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) considering the fact that funds were required in both ways on need basis irrespective of substantial interest
• Sec 14A/ Rule 8D – H.T. Media Ltd vs. CIT

[2017] 85 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi HC)

Where AO had failed to establish any direct nexus between investments made by assessee and interest expenditure incurred, Tribunal erred in remanding matter concerning deletion of disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) to AO for fresh determination

• Sec. 7AA – Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan

[2017] 84 taxmann.com 274 (SC)

Works contract executed by assessee for providing and laying of pipes complete with suitable jointing material specials, valves and construction of valve chamber, anchor blocks table crossing, including testing and commissioning of pipelines was a divisible contract, it could not be treated as one single and composite contract, and, therefore, Commercial Tax Officer was justified in holding that pipes manufactured and supplied by assessee fell within definition of sale of goods and assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under section 7AA for supply of pipelines