This document provides a summary of recent legal landmarks from various authorities: 1. The Bangalore ITAT held that payment for past services rendered must be treated as salary income under section 15 for the purpose of an employee benefits plan. 2. The Delhi HC held that if material differences between comparable companies can be eliminated by adjustments, no company can be excluded from the comparable list solely due to super profits. 3. The Gujarat HC held that if expenditure on technical know-how fees was already considered revenue, section 35AB would not apply and the claim under section 37(1) was justified.

1. VOLUME NO.: LLAT/791 OF 2016-17 DATE: 1 July 2014
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dear Client,
We have pleasure in listing below some of the recent legal landmarks.
SrNo Authority Section/Rules RATIO(S)
Citation /Subject CASE(NAME OF ASSESSEE)
1.1 BANG ITAT 15 45 54F ITA
Payment was made for services rendered by A in past and therefore A was to be
regarded as employee for purpose of impugned plan and benefits arising under this
plan as well as any other benefit received had to be treated as income under head
salaries
1.2 45TM338 Salary income
Chittaranjan A. Dasannacharya
2.1 DEL HC 92C ITA
Where material differences can be eliminated by adjustments no exclusion of super
profit making company from comparable list could be excluded.
2.2 56TM417 Tranfer Pricing
Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd
3.1 GUJ HC 35AB 37(1) ITA
Where expenditure on account of technical know-how fees was already held revenue
in nature applicability of section 35AB would not arise and claim of A under section
37(1) was justified.
3.2 45TM143 Deduction
Cibatul Ltd
4.1 BOM HC 260A ITA
Merely because AOs Advocate owned up mistake or lapse delay would not be
condoned automatically as departmental official must also give explanation for not
being in touch with Advocate and following matter in question.
4.2 46TM109 Appeal
Clariant (India) Ltd
5.1 MUM ITAT 37(1) ITA
Non-compete fee to ex-MD is revenue expenditure as no new assets of any enduring
benefit has arisen to A on such payment.
5.2 ITA No 7428_2011 Deduction
Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd
6.1 DEL HC 37(1) 43A ITA
Payment made on loss in foreign currency was expenditure incurred to protect itself
from foreign exchange fluctuation loss therefore said payment would be of revenue
nature.
6.2 51TM020 Deduction
Climate System (P.) Ltd