1.      M/S FORAMER FRANCE (Uttarakhand HC)

    Merely for the reason that the assessee sent some letters and made some offer from Dubai to ONGC does not amount doing business in India. We do agree that ‘lull in business’ does not mean that the assessee has ceased its business. But, when the assessee has neither permanent office, nor any other office in India, nor any contract was in execution during the relevant period, it cannot be said that they were in business in India, as such, it cannot be said that assessee was entitled to set off claimed by it under Section 71 of the Act….”

   (Click here for analysis)

   (Click here for judgement)

2.      M/S DIPTI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (BOMBAY HC)

   The Tribunal in both the cases cited supra, in the identical fact situation has   held that the transaction relating to bills discounting was a genuine one involving larger business interest and business expediency. In the circumstances, we are left with no other alternative but to answer the question referred in negative; i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

    (Click here for analysis)

   (Click here for judgement)

3. BHARTIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD (Karnataka HC)

    Assessee company ordered for certain machines intended to be used in the process of printing of currency notes, out of which a machine was damaged during transit, from which after reducing insurance compensation, assessee suffered loss of INR 25 lacs (app) which was claimed as business loss. Approved by Karnataka HC.

   (Click here for analysis)

   (Click here for judgement) 

(click here) for the Membership Form for becoming the Associate Member of ‘Voice of CA’.