1. In case of Federal Express : QOL Following question of law have been admitted on DTAA : international cargo taxation:

"A. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that profits of the appellant attributable to the transportation of cargo in the international traffic through aircrafts belonging to other airlines and inland transportation connected with such transportation would not be covered by Article 8 of the DTAA ?

B. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that commentaries on international tax law need not be resorted to while interpreting the expression "profits derived from the operation of aircraft in international traffic" in Article 8 of DTAA ?

(Click here for judgment)

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Mafat Lal &Sons –Duty Entitlement benefit

In this case it has been held that the issue of export entitlement is rightly answered by the ITAT relying on the judgment of Jamshri Rajitsinghji Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (41 ITD 142) with which no fault can be found.

(Click here for judgment)

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Merch Benz Section 37 -Revenue or Capital Expense- Termination of Agency

The question before their lordships was whether the Tribunal has erred in treating the payment made on account of termination of distributorship of M/s.Telco as revenue expenditure when the assessee derived enduring benefit and therefore the expenditure was of capital nature. Their lordship after referring to Empire Jute Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in [1980] 124 ITR 0001 (S.C.) held that these are revenue expenditure.

(Click here for judgment)

4. In case of Pinakin Patel: On service of Notice: Interalia Held that:

"Even otherwise, the postal acknowledgment “left” can hardly be said to be a good service in view of the law laid down by this Court. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on evidence with which no fault can be found. No substantial question of law arise in the appeal".

(Click here for judgment)

5. Smt. Madhavi K. Jain It has been held that when “the person, who gifted, had appeared before the Assessing Officer and affirmed his writing that he had given gift. The capacity of the person to gift is not doubted. The relationship sought to be explained has been accepted as out of love and affection. The transaction appears to be a genuine transaction”.

(Click here for judgment) 

If you have any query please e-mail at voiceofca@gmail.com.

"Pray that success will not come any faster than you are able to endure it"