By this income tax appeal, the appellant assessee challenges the orders of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessee had traded in shares and the income was liable to be taxed as business income.
In the present case, the assessee was in the bottling business for Parle Group of Companies, there was a right of first refusal and the assessee was to carry on the business of bottling for the Coca Cola Company. A detailed business plan was submitted. However, the Coca Cola Company, without any specific reason, rejected the business plan.
If a provision of law had been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would not be open to Asessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years in case no failure on assessee’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts was alleged.
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
Commissioner of Customs Vs S.S. Offshore Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) A right of an appeal has to be bestowed by a statute and no person can claim it as of a right, de hors the statute. However having found that there is a right of appeal conferred from the orders of the Commissioner of […]
M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) It is evident that in the facts of the present case the contract was clearly one for supply and erection of equipment, supply of equipment being dominant purpose. No doubt the State of Maharashtra had enacted the Maharashtra Sales Tax on “Transfer” of […]
The Bombay High Court while allowing a reference application in favour of the Revenue, held that voluntary disclosure in all cases cannot absolve the assessee from penal liabilities under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
judgment of the Supreme Court in Cochin Port Trust holds the field. We are accordingly of the view that the Port Trust falls within the definition of dealer and is liable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1954.
Pr CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who […]
Provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 18, 38, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. These provisions, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(1) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
