Ramilaben D. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Details of the sales and purchase in shares during the year resulted in the conclusion of the Tribunal that total 73 transactions were disclosed. Only one transaction is shown in long term capital gain category. The other transactions are sales and purchase of shares during the year itself. […]
We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly.
Akshar Developers Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is alleged in the reasons that the petitioner had failed to disclose the aforesaid bank account during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner had filed its objections by letter dated 23rd May, 2017 to the reasons inter-alia pointing out that during the course of assessment proceeding, the petitioner […]
Dharmakumar C. Kapadia Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) (i) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the income taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ is to be computed after deducting from the full value of consideration received on sale of capital asset, the cost of acquisition and improvement of the asset. Section 49 of […]
It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.
PCIT Vs Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Merely filing of an SLP from the order of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in […]
Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The only question that we have to consider is whether this concessional rate of duty could be availed of by the petitioner from 24.08.2017 to 13.10.2017. The intervening period where the taxable person under MGST Act does not continue to be […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. This is not for the first time that […]
CIT Vs Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) It is undisputed position before us that in terms of Section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/ permission to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not […]
