Bombay High Court

Reassessment notice U/s. 147/148 is invalid when period to issue notice U/s. 143(2) has not expired

Smt. Suman Vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

Where AO passed order of reassessment under section 147, even when Revenue processed return of assessee under section 143(1)(i) by intimation, the impugned assessment order deserved to be quashed, as the AO could not proceed with extraordinary power under section 147, when normal procedure of assessment of income under section 143(3) was ...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed in absence of Disallowance

Indermal Manaji Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)

It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tri­bunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribuna...

Read More

Penalty U/s. 221(1) for default in payment of demand cannot exceed tax amount

CIT Vs. Oryx Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

On reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology tax in arrears as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take within its realm the interest component. ...

Read More

Bombay HC on inclusion of insurance and carrying charges in ‘Sale Price’

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Ravi Trading Company (Bombay High Court)

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, on Monday, held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A bench comprising Justices R.K Deshpande and Manish Pitale was hearing a departmental appeal against the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribun...

Read More

No penalty for Bona fide belief that capital loss was not required to be considered U/s. 10(38)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was ...

Read More

Challenge pending cannot be equated to challenge succeeding: Bombay HC

CIT Vs Bharati Vidyapeeth (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs Bharati Vidyapeeth (Bombay High Court); The only argument is, namely, if the Revenue succeeds in the Appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal restoring assessee’s registration, then it may be open for the Revenue to tax its income and by holding that both Sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act have no application […]...

Read More

Bombay HC on ITAT order blaming ICAI and Chartered Accountants

Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)

HC held that Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee's Chartered Accountant....

Read More

AO cannot disallow expense U/s. 14A without recording his dis-satisfaction

Pr. Commissioner of Income­Tax­ Vs M/s. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.3,50,000/­ as against Rs.1,46,78,090/­ made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that for invoking disallowance u/s 14A, it is not material t...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied merely for non-challenge of addition by assessee in appeal

CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]...

Read More

Service Tax on Merger and Acquisition Services not leviable before 16th July 2001

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Vs M/s. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

We are disposing of the above Appeals preferred by the Revenue by this common order and judgment. The above Appeals have challenged the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short Appellate Tribunal) dated 3rd February 2016 in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2017 and 11st January 2016...

Read More
Page 1 of 6812345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,524)
Company Law (3,466)
Custom Duty (6,674)
DGFT (3,501)
Excise Duty (4,051)
Fema / RBI (3,292)
Finance (3,501)
Income Tax (25,347)
SEBI (2,758)
Service Tax (3,288)