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.
Pr. CIT Vs Mr. Peter Savio Pereira (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal notices that the assessee had received sale consideration partly in cash and partly in form of new flats to be constructed and to be allotted to the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that the assessee’s investment in such new […]
Pr. CIT Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op Bank (Bombay High Court) The division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that penalty cannot be levied under the Income Tax merely on the ground that a deduction claim was rejected by the department. The assessee is a Co-operative Bank. For the relevant A.Y under consideration, the […]
CIT Vs M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd (Bombay High Court) Assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call centre operations etc. Looking to the nature of services outsourced, it was held that the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work […]
Where the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income.
Bank guarantee commission was not in the nature of commission paid to an agent but it was in the nature of bank charges for providing one of the banking service, therefore, the charge collected by bank for such service did not amount to commission within the meaning of section 194H and such commission could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
Tata Communications Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Once a notice under subsection (2) of Section 143 was issued, the suspension of the refund arising out of the return filed by assessee would not be automatic till the passing of the order of assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143. Instead AO to take […]
Where employer had incurred genuine expenditure for the welfare and the benefit of the employees, contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds had to be allowed as a deduction.
