The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of registration of their appeals filed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act since they have not deposited the ten per cent of the disputed amount now mandated under the amended provision of Section 26 of the Act. They have challenged the validity of the amended provisions and the legislative competence of the State.
In the present case the Chief Commissioner of Income tax is not the officer specified in section 151 of the Act. There is thus a breach of requirement of section 151(2) of the Act regarding sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to succeed.
In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it is necessary to note that the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the ITAT have concurrently held that notwithstanding the nomenclature of the settlement, or the fact that the settlement is incorporated in the Consent Decree, the same is not a family settlement as such, the principle in Sachin Ambulkar (supra) is inapplicable.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v/ s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 has held that sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in […]
Where assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call center operations, etc. and the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work therefore, work outsourced was in the nature of clerical work and was rightly deducted under section 194C.
Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication. Thirdly, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
Legal expenses incurred to protect the Directors of the company in respect of the complaints filed against them in their individual capacity will not allowed under section 37 as business expenses.
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court) Section 78 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Related Laws (Amendments, Validation and Savings) Act, 2017, which saves Section 64 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid. Bombay High Court has held that by virtue of Section 78 of State […]
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
