Dharmakumar C. Kapadia Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) (i) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the income taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ is to be computed after deducting from the full value of consideration received on sale of capital asset, the cost of acquisition and improvement of the asset. Section 49 of […]
It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.
PCIT Vs Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Merely filing of an SLP from the order of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in […]
Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The only question that we have to consider is whether this concessional rate of duty could be availed of by the petitioner from 24.08.2017 to 13.10.2017. The intervening period where the taxable person under MGST Act does not continue to be […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. This is not for the first time that […]
CIT Vs Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) It is undisputed position before us that in terms of Section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/ permission to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not […]
Parliament did not seek to disturb and / or affect cases where deduction is taken twice over i.e. under Section 80IA and 80HHC of the Act on the same profit, provided it was less than the gross total income as defined in Section 80IB(5) of the Act.
Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner’s Rectification Application and considered the petitioner’s Appeal before it on merits, inter-alia, taking into account the material and case laws which has been already filed by the petitioner’s during the hearing leading to the order dated 13th February, 2015.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) SMS communication by Mr. Pinto to the Associate of this Court is contrary to the statement made on behalf of the Revenue yesterday by the learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the Revenue. Requesting an Advocate to put in a […]
