Bombay High Court

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not valid in absence of proper record of satisfaction

PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) at Goa

PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issue...

Read More

Bombay HC refers matter of 10% Mandatory deposit under MVAT to Larger Bench

United Projects Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of registration of their appeals filed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act since they have not deposited the ten per cent of the disputed amount now mandated under the amended provision of Section 26 of the Act. They have challenged the validity of the amended provisions and the legislati...

Read More

Taxability of loan waivers under Section 28(iv) and Section 41(1)

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v/ s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 has held that sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in […]...

Read More

TDS Under section 194C deductible on Payment of outsourcing expenses

CIT Vs M/s Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Where assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call center operations, etc. and the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work therefore, work outsourced was in the nature of clerical work and was rightly deducted under section 194C....

Read More

Auto-generated communication/Order under section 241A are not valid: HC

Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)

Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generate...

Read More

Repeal of VAT Act – Savings clause saves all rules, regulations, orders, notifications, etc

Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)

Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court) Section 78 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Related Laws (Amendments, Validation and Savings) Act, 2017, which saves Section 64 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid. Bombay High Court has held that by virtue of Section 78 of Sta...

Read More

Section 68 additions justified on failure to prove identity of share applicants

Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court)

Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon ...

Read More

Order refusing to issue refund is not appeallable u/s 246A but is subject to revision u/s 264

Aditya Marine Limited. Vs DCIT (International Taxation) (Bombay High Court)

If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order...

Read More

No fundamental right to import and quantitative restrictions can be imposed

Chailbihari Trading Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Chailbihari Trading Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Bombay High Court has held that there is no fundamental right to import poppy seeds and quantitative restrictions can be imposed as per the National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, controlled by the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act...

Read More

Proof of exports for fulfilment of EO – Absence of Bill of Export not fatal

Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Bombay High Court has directed the DGFT to issue export obligation discharge certificate in a case where the Additional DGFT was satisfied that the petitioner had fulfilled the export obligation but denied the benefit of fulfilment of export obligation only on the ground of non- furnishing of bill of export,...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,375)
Company Law (5,170)
Custom Duty (7,494)
DGFT (4,051)
Excise Duty (4,279)
Fema / RBI (3,902)
Finance (4,053)
Income Tax (31,258)
SEBI (3,249)
Service Tax (3,483)