Bombay High Court

AO cannot make addition for mere non-appearance of parties before him

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

This Appealunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10....

Read More

Non-prosecution of appeal on account of tax effect involved being less than prescribed monetary limit

Pr. CIT Vs Choudhary Exports (Bombay High Court)

The learnedCounsel for the Appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the Department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs....

Read More

Disallowance cannot be made by mere intimation U/s. 143(1)(a)

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court) While mere making of provision for bad debts will not by itself (on application of amended law) entitle the party to deduction, yet it would be a matter where the assessee should be given an  opportunity to establish its claim. This by producing its evidence of the manner in which i...

Read More

HC grants relief to Cricketer Cheteshwar Pujara in Service Tax related case

Cheteshwar Arvind Pujara Vs The Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)

The petitioner is an Indian citizen. He is a businessman and says that he plays international cricket representing India. He also plays domestic cricket. He participated in what is known as Indian Premier League (IPL). He was one of the players chosen by the franchisee Knight Riders Sports Private Limited. This franchisee is owner of one ...

Read More

HC ask CBDT to Reconsider practice of appointing retired revenue officers as panel counsel

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-I Vs M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Principal CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in [&hellip...

Read More

Bogus Loan: No need to explain source of source prior to insertion of proviso to Sec. 68

Pr. CIT Vs Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11....

Read More

Penalty cannot be deleted for mere admission of appeal in quantum proceedings

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Shree Gopal Housing (Bombay High Court)

Principal CIT Vs M/s. Shree Gopal Housing (Bombay High Court) Admission of an appeal in quantum proceedings, if arising on a pure interpretation of law or on a claim for deduction in respect of which full disclosure has been made, may, give rise to a possible iew, that admission of appeal in the quantum proceedings […]...

Read More

Section 35AB applies to both capital expenditure and revenue expenditure

M/s. Standard Batteries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

1. Section 35AB(1) : Obtaining of technical knowhow under a license would also amount to acquiring knowhow 2. Section 35AB: Making of lumpsum payment in 3 installments would not make the payment any less a lumpsum payment 3. Expenditure on knowhow which is used for the purposes of carrying on business would stand covered by Section 3...

Read More

Wealth Tax on land and building which is not used for business purposes

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd Vs IAC (Bombay High Court)

Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents fromgiving effect to the notices issued for assessment dated 22nd May, 1987, notices for penalty dated 4th August, 1987 and notices for launching of prosecution dated 31st July, 1987 all under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Wealth Tax Act); and...

Read More

HC passes Strictures passed against Dept’s Advocate for seeking to reargue settled concluded issues

Pr CIT Vs JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

We are pained to record this most unreasonable attitude on the part of the Advocate for the Revenue of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues, without having obtained any stay from the Apex Court. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consi...

Read More
Page 1 of 7412345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,722)
Company Law (3,802)
Custom Duty (6,917)
DGFT (3,658)
Excise Duty (4,127)
Fema / RBI (3,442)
Finance (3,655)
Income Tax (27,209)
SEBI (2,881)
Service Tax (3,352)