The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The bench noted that, in the present case, the deed is used in the State of Maharashtra for registering a charge by lodging a verified copy of the deed in the office of the Registrar of Companies in accordance with sections 125 […]
Section 206C(1C) of the Act only obliges a person to collect tax from its agents/licensee who collects a toll on its behalf. The obligation to collect tax under Section 206C(1C) of the Act cannot be extended to collection of octroi.
Assessee is not absolved of penalty because the additional income has been declared to buy peace. It must follow therefore that the above strategy (buy peace) by itself will not justify imposition of penalty, unless the requirement of the section under which the penalty is imposed are satisfied.
Railway not require permission of Municipal Corporation for erecting Advertisement Hoarding on its land and Municipal Corporation not entitled to levy advertisement tax on the advertisements displayed on the hoardings erected on the land of the railways
Once plant commences operation and even if product is substantial and not marketable, the business can said to have been set up. Mere breakdown of machinery or technical snags that may have developed after the trial run which had interrupted the continuation of further production for a period of time cannot be held ground to deprive the assessee of the benefit of depreciation claimed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge is to the judgement and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench A at Pune (for short Appellate Tribunal) on 30th April, 2014. The substantial questions of law which are placed into service are the questions which reads thus:
By this income tax appeal, the appellant assessee challenges the orders of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessee had traded in shares and the income was liable to be taxed as business income.
In the present case, the assessee was in the bottling business for Parle Group of Companies, there was a right of first refusal and the assessee was to carry on the business of bottling for the Coca Cola Company. A detailed business plan was submitted. However, the Coca Cola Company, without any specific reason, rejected the business plan.
If a provision of law had been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would not be open to Asessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years in case no failure on assessee’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts was alleged.
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
