Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
Bombay High Court held that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of payment made towards demurrage charges in cases where section 172 of the IT Act applies. The Revenue did not dispute in the present case that section 172 applied.
High Court held that as the issue of service of notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) are concerned, it is an admitted position that the said notices were never served on the Petitioner. The Revenue seeks to justify service of these notices on the Petitioner by contending that they have served the said notices on the last known address of the Petitioner which was the address of Ingram Micro India [earlier known as Tech Pacific India], the downstream company of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. vs. DCIT/Union of India that in the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.169/2014 dated 08.12.2015, it was held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act.
High Court held that section 10(33) provides that any income by way of (i) dividends referred to in section 115-O; or (ii) income received in respect of the units from the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963; or (iii) income received in respect of units of a mutual fund specified under section 10(23D), shall be exempt from tax.
HC held that income tax officer to whom an application is made should give an acknowledgment of having received and accepted the application on face if the same is found in prescribed manner with prescribed details.
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
Bombay High Court held that it is not open for the tribunal to disregard the binding decision of jurisdictional high court. Once there is a binding decision of jurisdictional high Court, the same continues to be binding on all authorities within the State till such time as it stayed and / or set aside by the Apex Court or this very Court takes a different view on an identical factual matrix or larger bench of this Court takes a view different from one already taken.
On account of some unavoidable reasons of the death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date. The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of the appellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice.
