High Court held that section 10(33) provides that any income by way of (i) dividends referred to in section 115-O; or (ii) income received in respect of the units from the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963; or (iii) income received in respect of units of a mutual fund specified under section 10(23D), shall be exempt from tax.
HC held that income tax officer to whom an application is made should give an acknowledgment of having received and accepted the application on face if the same is found in prescribed manner with prescribed details.
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
Bombay High Court held that it is not open for the tribunal to disregard the binding decision of jurisdictional high court. Once there is a binding decision of jurisdictional high Court, the same continues to be binding on all authorities within the State till such time as it stayed and / or set aside by the Apex Court or this very Court takes a different view on an identical factual matrix or larger bench of this Court takes a view different from one already taken.
On account of some unavoidable reasons of the death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date. The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of the appellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice.
In the present case, the capital assets has never come into existence and accordingly ITAT has allowed travelling expenses or ore testing charges only as revenue expenditure. The travelling expenses or manganese ore testing charges pertaining to the existing mine allowed by the ITAT
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. that we find no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has endorsed the views of the CIT Appeals whilst coming to such conclusions.
it was held that where complete disclosure of income had been made in the return of income and head of the income undergoes a change at the hands of the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (c).
Infosys & Wipro are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services is different and as such the profit earned there from cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee.
