Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Buying and selling of share in short span of time doesn’t changed character of capital gain as business income High Court of Bombay in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-II v/s Viksit Engineering Ltd vide its ITA Appeal No:485 dated 26th November 2016 has held […]
A1 Cuisines Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Facts : Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ directing the respondent UOI to exempt the petitioner from charging applicable taxes under the GST legislations on sale of cosmetic products, perfumes etc. to the International passengers and claim refund of any input tax paid on input […]
The petitioner says that he is a senior citizen of 65 years of age and because he is not in possession of Form No.16, he has suffered at the hands of the Department. Let, therefore, the necessary steps be taken in law so that such occurrences are avoided in future.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court) We note the fact, that the issue of classification of income on sale of shares as business income or as short term capital gains is to be decided the facts of each case. The tests to be applied for such determination is provided in CBDT Circular No.4 of […]
PCIT Vs M/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.). The Assessing Officer has merely issued a reopening notice on the basis of intimation regarding reopening notice from the DDIT (Inv.) This is clearly in […]
Bhupendra Murji Shah Vs DCIT (High Court Bombay) We are not concerned here with the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We are not concerned here also with the power conferred in the Assessing Officer of collection and recovery by coercive means. All that we are worried about is the understanding of this […]
Sony Pictures Networks India appeal: By not dealing with an issue which is otherwise ripe for consideration and instead remanding to the TPO, the Tribunal ensures further litigation and continued uncertainty for both the Revenue and the assessee, non-consideration of the basic submission made at the hearing as recorded, is clearly a mistake apparent from the record
As a part of the tourism policy of the State Government, the petitioner was offered certain incentives in the nature of entertainment tax waiver. Upon introduction of Goods & Services Tax (“GST” for short), the entertainment tax was subsumed. The GST currently prescribed is @ 18%.
Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) HC observed that we are at a loss to understand as to why the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not communicated to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this […]
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court) The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to […]
