PCIT Vs Inarco Limited (Bombay High Court) The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer omitted to consider Section 50C of the Act while passing the order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the reopening notice dated 11.3.2010 is valid in law. In this […]
Association of National Exchanges Members of India Vs SEBI (Bombay High Court) CBDT has clarified that where a derivative contract is being settled by physical delivery of shares, the transaction would not be any different from transaction in equity share where the contract is settled by actual delivery or transfer of shares. It further states […]
PCIT Vs International Biotech Park Ltd (Bombay High Court) Revenue has been selective in its approach. It picks either the assessee or the assessment years pertaining to that assessee for challenging the orders in relation to them, before the higher forums. This results in revenue leakage or perpetuation of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of revenue. The public at large […]
Sanskriti Jayantilal Salia Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) When mens rea is conspicuously absent, mere use of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes cannot attract the provisions of Section 489(B). The essential ingredient of the said offence being that the person, who receives the notes has reason to believe that […]
Ramilaben D. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Details of the sales and purchase in shares during the year resulted in the conclusion of the Tribunal that total 73 transactions were disclosed. Only one transaction is shown in long term capital gain category. The other transactions are sales and purchase of shares during the year itself. […]
We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly.
Akshar Developers Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is alleged in the reasons that the petitioner had failed to disclose the aforesaid bank account during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner had filed its objections by letter dated 23rd May, 2017 to the reasons inter-alia pointing out that during the course of assessment proceeding, the petitioner […]
Dharmakumar C. Kapadia Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) (i) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the income taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ is to be computed after deducting from the full value of consideration received on sale of capital asset, the cost of acquisition and improvement of the asset. Section 49 of […]
It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.
PCIT Vs Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Merely filing of an SLP from the order of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in […]
