Pr. CIT Vs M/s. JWC Logistics Park Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) HC dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal before it by holding that the Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the respondent – assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as an infrastructure facility. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / […]
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
The Larger Bench (LB) of Bombay HC rules in favour of Revenue, holds that cash refund u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not permissible when CENVAT Credit on inputs remains unutilized on account of closure of manufacturing unit or inability to utilize input credit.
Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to summons, can only be taken recourse to after decision under Section 73, relating to demand of tax. The High Court in this regard declined to quash the notice for personal hearing.
Notice issued in the name of deceased assessee instead of upon his/her legal representatives was invalid as the legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to the impugned notice, therefore, the provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and hence, the notice had to be treated as invalid.
By crediting enhanced value of land, which belonged to assessee-firm to current account of partners of firm and by treating it as loan from the partners in account of company, there was violation of provisions contained in clauses (a) and (c) of proviso to section 47(xiii). Therefore, the said transaction would amount to transfer of capital asset within the purview of section 45 and thus, the profits or gains obtained by transfer of asset by firm to company would be treated as capital gains.
The notice under section 148 of the Act, which is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same.
While praying for stay of demand raised pursuant to the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the writ-applicant contended that the case was one of high pitched assessment. The writ-applicant also pointed out his poor financial condition. The writ-applicant submitted before the Income Tax Officer that even the deposit of 20% of the total amount was beyond his financial capacity.
Revision under section 263 was invalid in case order of assessment merged with the order of Appellate CIT in its entirety as CIT did not have jurisdiction to revise such order of assessment in view of clause (c) of Expln. 1 to sub-section (1) of section 263.
Once the prior period income was held to be taxable, the prior period expenditure also should be allowed to be set off and assessee was not obliged in law to indicate any direct or indirect nexus between the prior period income and prior period expenditure.
