1.  DDIT Vs. M/s Mitchell Drilling International Pty. Ltd., ITA No. 698/Del./2012, Dated : Aug. 31, 2012  ITAT, Delhi.

The Hon'ble ITAT has held that Service tax being a statutory liability,     would not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could     not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive     income.

(The case was argued by our contributory member CA Amit Arora)

(Please click here for judgment) 
 

2.    CIT Vs. M/s Singapore Airlines Ltd., Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 15 to 20 of 2006, Dated: July 13, 2012, High Court of Madras

Issue:

Whether landing and parking charges paid by international airlines to AAI can be considered as rent, so as to attract TDS liability u/s 194-I.

Held:

That a mere use of the land for landing and payment charged, which is not for the use of the land, but for maintenance of the various services, including the technical services involving navigation, would not automatically bring the transaction and the charges within the meaning of either lease or sub-lease or tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement of a nature of Lease or tenancy and rent. As far as the runway usage by an aircraft is concerned, it could be no different from the analogy of a road used by any vehicle or any other form of transport. If the use of tarmac could be characterized as use of land, so too the use of a road would be a use of land. We do not think that for the purpose of treating the payment as rent, such use would fall under the expression "use of land". Thus, going by the nature of services offered by the Airport Authority of India for landing and parking charges thus collected from the assessee herein, we do not find any ground to accept that the payment would fit in with the definition of 'rent' as given under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act;

(Please click here for judgment)

3.    Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 6005/Mum./2010, Date of Order: 10.08.2012, ITAT- Mumbai

In fresh assessment passed pursuant to remand by ITAT, assessee cannot be worse off than what he was in the original assessment order

It is a settled proposition of law that the Tribunal u/s 254(1) has no power to take back the benefit conferred by the AO or enhance the assessment. Once the matter has been restored by the Tribunal, the income cannot be enhanced from what was determined at the time of original assessment proceedings, which was the subject matter of dispute, before the Tribunal. This proposition of law has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd 62 ITR 232 (SC) and reiterated in Mcorp Global 309 ITR 434 (SC). Therefore, the enhancement of assessment by making 100% dis-allowance in respect of free food allowance cannot be sustained and the same is restricted to 50%, as was made by the AO in the original round of proceedings.

(Please click here for judgment)