M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Ltd. Vs Board of Directors State of Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Indisputedly, order dated 16.3.2017 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 has attained the finality and has been executed. The Petitioner herein has not challenged the order dated 16.3.2017 either by filing an application under Section 17 of […]
Dulraj U. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 147 / Section 148– Reasons recorded do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned […]
There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings.
CIT Vs M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Limited (Bombay High Court) On perusal of Section 153A of the Act, it is manifest that it does not make any distinction between assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A of the Act in case of The […]
Alankar Sahkari Griha Rachana Sanstha Vs Atul Mahadev Bhagat & Anr (Bombay High Court) When the persons come together with common object of housing, after formation of a Cooperative Society, they are governed under rules and bye-laws of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. So far as the members are concerned, the Cooperative Housing Society can collect […]
PCIT Vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment […]
Bombay High Court ruling on revised income tax return. Second proviso to Section 158BC(a) discussed. Learn about the key legal considerations.
Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) In the case in hand, Appellants-Assessee is a company manufacturing copper foils. Son of one of the directors was sent to USA for completing course in Business Administration which was ‘general’ in nature and had no direct nexus with the business activities of the Appellant-Assessee. Appellants did not place […]
Assessee-company engaged in business of letting out of immovable property, had claimed benefit of section 54. AO found that assessee, being a company was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54; thus, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, assessee contended that penalty was not imposable, only on account of having made an ineligible claim.
The expression does not form part of the total income in Section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the income in question
