The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income
The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval
Taking a strict view of frivolous petitions that flood the courts, the Bombay high court in an unprecedented move has ordered a city-based organisation, the Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana , to pay Rs 40 lakh as legal costs after dismissing its public interest litigations against a super-luxury tower on Peddar Road
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund.
In the instant case, the deductee has already discharged tax liability with interest payable under Section 201(1)(a) of the Act. As such no further interest can be claimed by the revenue from the respondents either under Section 234A or 234B or 234C of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal for the reasons stated cannot be faulted.
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Techno Shares & Shares Limited and Various other Stock Broking Houses (ITA no. 971 of 2006 and 218 of 2007) held that the depreciation cannot be granted on Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (BSE card) acquired on or after 1 April 1998 either by nomination or directly through the stock exchange.
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the taxpayer’s submissions with respect to section 14A was accepted by a tax officer, the Tribunal cannot send back the same matter for the tax officer’s re¬consideration. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT) has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not justified in sending back the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after applying the ratio of the decision in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd [2008] 312 ITR (SB) (Mum) since the submissions made by the taxpayer in this regard was accepted by the tax officer during the assessment proceedings.
Foreign Law Firms are not eligible to open liaison offices or to practice law in India. Even giving an opinion on a legal matter amounts to “practise of law”. Non-Advocates cannot practise law.
In a path-breaking judgment, the Bombay high court has held that even a single dissenting member of a cooperative housing society cannot be thrown out by a builder based on a mere development agreement with the society and a majority of the flat owners in it for redevelopment of the building.
The Tribunal dismissed the excise appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. The application filed by the assessee for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. The dismissal was challenged before the High Court on the ground that under s. 35C of the Excise Act (corresponding to s. 254 of the Income-tax Act) the Tribunal had no power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of the Appellant. It had to decide on merits. HELD:
