Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Bombay High Court

The expression "Tax due" in section 179(1) will not comprehend within its ambit a penalty

February 27, 2011 817 Views 0 comment Print

Where Parliament has intended to make a specific provision imposing a liability to pay penalty apart from the tax which is due and payable, a specific provision to that effect has been made; the expression “tax due” in section 179(1) cannot comprehend within the meaning of that expression a liability to pay a penalty that may have been imposed on the company.

On invocation of action under section 13 of Securitisation Act by secured creditor, reference before BIFR would abate by virtue of third proviso to section 15(1) of SICA

February 25, 2011 8760 Views 0 comment Print

The third proviso under section 15(1) of the SICA relieves the specified strength of secured creditors from shackle of taking consent of the BIFR and permits them to pursue their remedy under the provisions of Securitisation Act, which have been introduced as a special enactment, to further the cause of financial sector and the financial institutions to which the same is applicable.

Rectification of computational error- A simple computational error can be resolved by rectifying an order of assessment under Section 154(1)

February 25, 2011 9111 Views 0 comment Print

It would be entirely arbitrary for the Assessing Officer to reopen the entire assessment under Section 147 to rectify an error or mistake which can be rectified under Section 154; an arbitrary exercise of power is certainly not a consequence which Parliament contemplates.

Vanita Vishram Trust vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)

February 25, 2011 9961 Views 0 comment Print

The fact that a surplus may incidentally arise from the activities of the trust, after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities, would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(23C).

Pre A.Y 05-06 approved housing project eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) irrespective of commercial use extent

February 25, 2011 229 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. Brahma Associates Vs. CIT, Pune – Revenue was not justified in confining the deduction only to projects having commercial area upto 10% of the BUA because once the basic argument of the revenue that the housing projects with commercial user are not entitled to Section 80IB(10) deduction is rejected, no restriction could be imposed. If the project is approved as a “housing project” deduction u/s 80-IB(10) is allowable irrespective of the commercial area;

An association may engage in activities which can be described as mutual and in other activities which are not mutual

February 25, 2011 784 Views 0 comment Print

An association may engage in activities which can be described as mutual and in other activities which are not mutual; in such a case, the principle of mutuality has to be confined to transactions with members possessing the essential character of mutuality; the two activities can in appropriate cases be separated and the profits derived from transactions which do not fulfill the requirements of mutuality can be brought to tax.

Bombay HC defers hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition

February 10, 2011 349 Views 0 comment Print

The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against the income tax authorities without specifying a new date for next hearing. The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against t

Appeals filed by Trig Detective Pvt Ltd. restored by Bombay High Court as appellant hands over a Pay Order of the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 3 crores ordered by CESTAT

February 8, 2011 297 Views 0 comment Print

All these appeals are filed against the order of CESTAT dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to make payment of predeposit amount of Rs.3 crores as ordered by the CESTAT. Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.

Assessment beyond a period of four years can not be re-opened where there is full and true disclosure of all material facts by assessee

February 6, 2011 922 Views 0 comment Print

No action can be taken under the section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

If assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts for his assessment, action of re-opening assessment beyond a period of four years would stand barred

February 6, 2011 753 Views 0 comment Print

Where the revenue has failed to establish before the Court that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the exercise of the power to re-open the assessment beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would fail to fulfill the statutory condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power to re-open an assessment beyond a period of four years

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728