High Court of Bombay at Goa has held in the case of Vassantram Mehta & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT that Interest not to be disallowed if interest free advance granted to sister concern due to commercial expediency and is for business purpose of assessee.
High Court of Bombay at Goa has held in the case of In the case of M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT that that it is settled position that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent of petitioner.
In view of the petition filed by the assessee above, the court directed the respondent would vacate the attachment of the refund of Rs.105,95,04,390/- done u/s 281B of the act, as the petitioner was furnishing a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for the equal amount
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B4U International Holdings held that the agents of the foreign company if not exclusively working for assessee and they are not decision makers with no power of concluding contracts and as such their activities being incidental in nature.
The ITAT president has constituted a special bench of the three members to hear the case of assessee by exercising his powers u/s 255 (3). A notice fixing date of hearing before special bench was served upon the assessee.
In, the present case the Hon’ble High Court held that the deposit of tax before the initiation of penalty proceedings will not help Assessee in escaping the penalty proceedings u/s 221. Also, the point of Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization will not give any relief to the assessee.
In the present case the Hon’ble High Court while accepting the Writ filed by the assessee, restored the matter back to the Tribunal by observing that the Judicial Functions should not be performed in the arbitrary manner.
In, the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that no penalty could be levied until it is proved that there was an active concealment or there is deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003.
