Bombay HC in the above cited case held that when the assessee’s volume of purchasing and selling shares is quite high with higher frequency of buying and selling with holding 75 days or less then its prima facie indicate that it is engaged in trading of shares unless assessee provide a sound reasoning that why transactions should not be considered as trading activity.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above cited case held that even in mercantile system of accounting an item would be regarded as accrued income only if there is certainty of receiving it and not when it has been waived. Earning of the income, whether actual or notional, has to be seen from the viewpoint of a prudent assessee.
Case Law Details Case Name : CIT Vs. M.s Neon Solutions P. Ltd. (Bombay High Court), IT Appeal No. 2251 & 2360 of 2013, 05.04.2016 Appeal Number : Date of Judgement/Order : Related Assessment Year : Courts : All High Courts (1233) Bombay High Court (292) Download Judgment/Order CA Saurabh Chokhra Brief of the case: 1. The Hon’ble Bombay High […]
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above cited case held that merely because a part of surplus was invested in mutual funds it cannot mean that it would render the principle of mutuality inapplicable more so when the invested money has to be utilized for the furtherance of association’s objectives
When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal’s mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the Court or the Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review.
In the present facts we find that consequent to the vendor not honouring the agreement dated 18th May, 1980, all that the appellant had was a right to seek specific performance which he sought to enforce by filing the suit. The appellant did not have possession of the said land. It is only on the Consent Terms being filed in Court that the appellant got ownership and possession.
In the case of M/s Quality Fabricators and Erectors Vs. The Deputy Director, DGCEI, Zonal Unit Mumbai and Others, it was held that in case of non payment of service tax by the assessee, the notices for recovery cannot be issued to assessee’s debtors unless the liability has been crystallised.
HC held that when assessee participated in reassessment proceedings by furnishing the required documents and challenges the reopening subsequently before the high court by filing a writ petition then it would be not be appropriate for the high court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction because the assessee has already chosen AO to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and to challenge his order before the appropriate appellate forum provided under the Act.
In the instant case although the appellant assessee has called upon us to draw an inference that the burden shifted to the revenue in the present case once it was established that the payments were made and repaid by cheque we need not hasten and adopt that view after having given our thought to various […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that mesne profits are capital receipts in the hands of the assessee and not revenue receipts chargeable to tax?
