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 […]...

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 […...

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 […]...

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 […]...

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...

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, […]...

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 […]...

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 […]...

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 […]...

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 […]...