CIT- LTU Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assessee provided electricity generated by its captive power generating plant to its another units, then while computing deduction under section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961, the value of electricity provided to another unit was to be at the rate for which electricity distribution companies […]
Smt. Kalpana Ashwin Shah Vs ACIT and Ors. (Bombay High Court) 1. The Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax pending Appeal against the order of the assessment subject to which the remaining recovery […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not an ordinary resident without appreciating that the amendment brought in Section 6(6) by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and had to be given retrospective effect as communicated by the Circular No. 7 of 2003 issued by the CBDT?
Faisal Ahmed Abdul Malik Javeri Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) No doubt, there are certain decisions, in which it has been held that the provisions of Customs Act will not affect the powers of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is absolutely no dispute as regards […]
Shri Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) In the context of interest, there are three crucial dates. The date of the accident is a date in reference to which the entire compensation is calculated. The date of filing of the claim petition is the date from which the claimant […]
Since the delivery of the notice of reassessment could not be made at the address of assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company however, no such steps were taken, therefore, service of notice was not complete and reopening of assessment was invalid.
Ess Infraproject Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The issue of the saving of Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1992 on introduction of CGST Act, 2017 is an issue that requires detailed consideration. This would be appropriately done at the final hearing. Thus, granting of interim relief at this stage would […]
C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. Vs Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors. (Bombay High Court) We find that the fundamental submission of the petitioner before the AARA was the fact that money would stand covered by the definition of ‘goods’ under Section 2(52) of the GST Act so long as the same is not used as […]
High Court held that Income Tax Refund cannot be withheld by Income Tax Department for error in Computer System. It held that the computer system cannot override the factual aspects and if Income Tax refund is payable than whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Section 32(1)(ii) Rights acquired by the assessee under the said agreement not only give enduring benefit, protected the assessee’s business against competence, that too from a person who had closely worked with the assessee in the same business. The expression ‘or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation and make Assess eligible to claim depreciation on Non-compete rights.
