Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Bombay High Court

ITAT explains difference between “derived from the undertaking” and “derived from the business of the undertaking”

September 10, 2018 1830 Views 0 comment Print

Court held that interest on fixed deposits in the bank would be profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking. The same reasoning would apply to extend deductions under Section 80IA of the Act for the compensation received for non supply of spare parts. T

HC Imposes cost for Abuse of law by filing Multiple Proceedings on same issue

September 7, 2018 2934 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

Reopening Notice is without jurisdiction if it do not specify quantum of tax which escaped assessment

September 6, 2018 1683 Views 2 comments Print

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 […]

Evidence submitted during assessment cannot be rejected merely for non submission at the time of seizure

September 5, 2018 1305 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Assessment after search U/s. 153A is limited to incriminating evidence found during search

September 5, 2018 1992 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

Co-Op HSG Society cannot charge Transfer fees in excess of permissible fees as donation

August 31, 2018 19179 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

HC explains difference between Res Judicata and Consistency Principle

August 27, 2018 6708 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

2nd proviso to section 158BC(a) do not prohibits an assessee from raising additional claim before appellate authorities

August 22, 2018 570 Views 0 comment Print

Bombay High Court ruling on revised income tax return. Second proviso to Section 158BC(a) discussed. Learn about the key legal considerations.

Expense for Higher Education of Directors’ Son not allowable as Business Expenditure

August 22, 2018 4629 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

Penalty justified on Company for claiming deduction under section 54

August 22, 2018 789 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728