When the disclosure is made subsequently to the seizure of incriminating material, the disclosure is made because of adverse consequences and such disclosure is not voluntary. On the facts of the case, the disclosure was made pursuant to search and seizure of incriminating material which includes the diary. The issue whether the authorities could have deciphered the documents on their own without petitioner co-operating, is immaterial.
The AO passed an assessment order in which he declined to follow the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement “is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment”. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in Pee Vee Textiles is not stayed,
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on collection of Service Tax levied on buildings under construction, following a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (MCHI). Mr Sunil Mantri, President, MCHI, said the chamber had urged the High Court to restrain the respondents (Union Government and others) from taking steps against the members of the Chamber in respect of transactions for construction,
Construction of a complex intended for sale by the builder before, during or after construction is deemed to be a service provided by the builder to the buyer;No service tax is leviable if entire payment for the property is paid by the buyer after completion of the construction including certification by the local authorities;
section 80HHC, Deduction under Section 80HHC, Bombay High Court, export turnover,deduction under section 80HHC
CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (Bombay High Court)- S. 28 (iiid) provides that “any profit on the transfer” of the DEPB shall be business profits. Under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28(iiid)” has to be reduced from the business profits. Under the third Proviso to s. 80HHC (3), in the case of an assessee having an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores, the profits referred to in s. 80HHC (3) can be increased by 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid)” only if two conditions are satisfied.
This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed.
The Bombay high court last week ruled that a labour dispute can be referred to the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of an unrecognised workers’ union. In this dispute between Bharat Forge Ltd and Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, the recognised union had 800 workers at the Pune plant.
The assessee-trust was a public charitable trust engaged in education of women. In the earlier years, the assessee was granted exemption u/ss 11, 10(22) & 10(23C)(vi). The assessee’s application for renewal of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was rejected on the ground that (i) the objects permitted the non-educational object of constructing an ashram
