In the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Others , Bombay High Court inter-alia held that the assessee herein being a Cooperative Bank also governed by the Reserve Bank of India and thus the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India
CIT Vs.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assesse received interest on inter-coporate deposit which was offered to tax in earlier years. Subsequently, assesse made certain provision for bad debts.
In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim.
Bombay High court held In the case of R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Ltd. vs. The CIT that concept of double taxation is not attracted in the present matter. The Export firm has to pay tax as it has actually utilized that amount as its income while the assessee has to pay tax as it attempted to conceal that income.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Nagpur Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. that in order to attract ceiling u/s 40(c), the payment must be a periodical payment. A Lumsum payment or one time payment is not covered under section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
Bombay High court held In the case of The CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia & others. that amendments in the statute unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively.
In the case of Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs CCE, it was held by Bombay High Court that the period of limitation prescribed in section 11A of the Act cannot be enlarged. Once it is possible to scrutinise and verify the compliance of the terms and conditions on which the exemption has been issued in this case
In the case of Vodafone India Ltd. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by Bombay High Court that by following the principles laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, a telecom service provider is not entitled to credit of duty paid on towers
The assessee company was incorporated on 31.05.2005 pursuant to the reorganization of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.During the course of survey conducted on 18.12.2008, it was noticed that the assessee had made payment to MSETCL and PGCIL under the BPTAs without deducting tax at source.
