A division bench of the Bombay High Court, on Monday, held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A bench comprising Justices R.K Deshpande and Manish Pitale was hearing a departmental appeal against the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal wherein the Tribunal held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was also given that it reserves its right to carry forward the loss.
CIT Vs Bharati Vidyapeeth (Bombay High Court); The only argument is, namely, if the Revenue succeeds in the Appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal restoring assessee’s registration, then it may be open for the Revenue to tax its income and by holding that both Sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act have no application […]
HC held that Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee’s Chartered Accountant.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.3,50,000/ as against Rs.1,46,78,090/ made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that for invoking disallowance u/s 14A, it is not material that the assessee should have earned such exempt income during the financial year under consideration as per CBDT circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014
CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]
HC held that We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion. There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable […]
It was held by Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Ltd vs. CIT [1972 AIR 2315, 1972 SCR (1) 457] that it is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this Court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction, to go behind or to question the statements of facts made by the Tribunal.
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
