|
III. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. M/s. Dewan Chand Satyapal, ITA Nos. 87/2003 & 1411/2006, Date of order: 21.12.2012, High court of Delhi
Whether a
Diagnostic Centre is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of
Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act 1961, Held- No.
Held that the unit or activity is deemed an industrial undertaking, if it is involved in production of goods or articles.
What is
important is that the primary activity is not manufacture or processing
of goods; the end use product is one capable of use only by one person,
for a limited purpose; even the “producer” has no right to disseminate
it in any manner, because it is the private property or confidential
matter of the patient. Plainly, it is a service that is provided.
Another aspect to the matter is that the negative list – the contents of
the Eleventh schedule, all point to articles or things, which
illustrate that facilities provided by diagnostic centers do not result
in manufacture or production of goods or things, or their processing.
That the expression “manufactures” or “production” or processing has
to be of “articles or things”. They are to be interpreted as such along
with the company (of the other words) they keep. While the benefit which
might flow to the general public if diagnostic facilities are deemed
industrial undertakings is undeniable, as it would probably result in
lower cost of diagnosis of diseases and conditions, yet that result
cannot be achieved by doing violence to the statute, in the guise of
interpretation. The remedy (to this perceived mischief) is clearly
elsewhere. In view of the above conclusions, the questions of law framed
in these appeals are answered in favour of the revenue, and against the
assessee;
(Please click here for judgment)
2. ACIT Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, ITA No. 163/Hyd/2011, Date of order 28.09.2012, ITAT – Hyderabad
Share Trading is a business activity, if High volume, frequency, regularity & systematic.
Held that the
assessee have made several transactions of purchase of shares during the
relevant year under consideration, and if there high volume, frequency
and regularity of the activity carried on by the assessee in a
systematic manner, it would partake the character of business activities
carried on by the assessee in shares, and it cannot be said that the
assessee have merely made investments in shares.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now