Bombay High Court

Penalty U/s. 27(1)(c) cannot be levied for not following FIFO method

Pr. CIT­ Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]...

Read More

TDS u/s 194C applies on Payments for catering services

CIT Vs Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer held that services of catering rendered by M/s Monginis is technical service and therefore, deduction of tax at source by the respondent has to be under Section 194J of the Act. However, in appeal both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) as well […...

Read More

Tribunal can examine a question of law, even though raised for first time before it

CIT Vs. State Bank of India (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs. State Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law, in admitting the additional ground of appeal when the assessee had not raised this issue before the Assessment Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ? Tribunal has jurisdiction to […]...

Read More

Reopening notice based on satisfaction of some other authority is invalid

South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)

South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is a settled position in law that re-opening of an assessment has to be done by an Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction. It is not open to an Assessing Officer issue a reopening notice at the dictate and/or satisfaction of some other authority. Therefore, on […]...

Read More

Revisional jurisdiction U/s./ 263 cannot be exercised for better view of CIT

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ­8 Vs M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee about the correctness of the amount of one­fifth of the total expenses incurred under Section 35D of the Act. The assessee under letter dated 26.10.2004 gave specific explanation on the issue raised by the Assessing Officer and ther...

Read More

Penalty cannot levied on suo motu income declared in revised return 

Pr. CIT Vs Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Ltd. (Bombay High Court) revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, was valid return of income filed by the Respondent on its own and not on the basis of any investigation/ discovery done by the department of inaccurate particulars in the original return of income. Thus, […]...

Read More

Section 115JB pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012 not applicable to banking, insurance & electricity cos

CIT Vs Union Bank of India (Bombay High Court)

CIT  Vs Union Bank of India (Bombay High Court) To align the Income Tax Act with the Companies Act, 1956 it was decided to amend Section 115JB to provide that the companies which are not required under Section 211 of the Companies Act, to prepare profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI of […]...

Read More

Seat of Tribunal to decide Appellate Court u/s 260A /269: Bombay HC

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) Seat of the Tribunal (in which State) would decide the jurisdiction of the Court to which the appeal would lie under the Act.  In the present case, the orders were passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal (even if the assessment was […]...

Read More

Powers of Tribunal to allow claim of assessee when such claim was raised for first time before it

CIT Vs State Bank of India (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs State Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has jurisdiction to examine a question of law, even though raised for the first time before the Tribunal, which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. Tribunal should not […]...

Read More

Bogus Purchases- Entire purchase amount cannot be added

PCIT Vs M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (Bombay High Court)

PCIT Vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three entities who were indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,148)
Company Law (4,737)
Custom Duty (7,278)
DGFT (3,931)
Excise Duty (4,195)
Fema / RBI (3,697)
Finance (3,893)
Income Tax (29,914)
SEBI (3,134)
Service Tax (3,452)