Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The assessing officer did not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. However, […]
Smt. Kalpana Shantilal Haria Vs. Assistant CIT (Bombay High Court) There can be no dispute with regard to the application of Section 292B of the Act to sustain a notice from being declared invalid merely on the ground of mistake in the notice. However, the issue here is not with regard to the mistake / […]
Where assessee sold certain property and utilized a part of the consideration towards purchase of new house, however, failed to deposit unutilized consideration in specified accounts before due date under section 139(1), AO was justified in restricting deduction under section 54F proportionately.
A tax like Goods and Services Tax was highly publicised and termed as popular. We had yet not seen a celebration of New Tax regime, but that has followed with great hue and cry. These celebrations mean nothing.
A tax like Goods and Services Tax was highly publicised and termed as popular. We had yet not seen a celebration of New Tax regime, but that has followed with great hue and cry. These celebrations mean nothing. The special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy access to the website and portals.
On 19th September 2017, notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued. Accordingly, today, we have taken up the writ petition for final hearing. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai issued notice dated 18th April 2017 to the petitioner taking recourse to subsection 2 of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
It is a settled principle of law that sanction granted by the higher Authority for issuing of a reopening notice has to be on due application of mind. It cannot be an mechanical approval without examining the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer.
Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The Apex Court observed that the participation by persons from other specified fields would be a positive consideration for achievement of the object of the said Act of 2005. However, the Apex Court observed that the requirement of a judicial mind for manning […]
Only losses of the years beginning from the initial assessment year are to be brought forward for set-off against profits of the eligible unit. Losses of earlier years which are already set off against income cannot be brought forward notionally for set-off. The fiction in s. 80-IA(5) is created only for a limited purpose and cannot be extended
By these Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, the said Act), the assessee is challenging the final order dated 21st July, 2015 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT). After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law.
