In the case of Sandvik Asia Limited vs. DCIT, Bombay High Court held that the payment made by the Appellant in its nature is different from a payment made to protect the property. In fact, Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT 27 ITR 34
It was argued that the above decisions were accepted by CBDT and the due date was extended in the respective territories of the High Court’s jurisdiction. Hon’ble HC after considering the above two judgments held that held that it is very unfair that benefit regarding an all India statute is restricting its benefit to only two states and one Union territory.
The Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of CIT vs. Dempo and Co. P. Ltd that when the non- resident payee is assessable under special provisions contained in Sec 172 , then the payer cannot be made responsible for deducting tax at source on the payments made to non-resident.
In the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Others , Bombay High Court inter-alia held that the assessee herein being a Cooperative Bank also governed by the Reserve Bank of India and thus the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India
CIT Vs.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assesse received interest on inter-coporate deposit which was offered to tax in earlier years. Subsequently, assesse made certain provision for bad debts.
In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim.
Bombay High court held In the case of R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Ltd. vs. The CIT that concept of double taxation is not attracted in the present matter. The Export firm has to pay tax as it has actually utilized that amount as its income while the assessee has to pay tax as it attempted to conceal that income.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Nagpur Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. that in order to attract ceiling u/s 40(c), the payment must be a periodical payment. A Lumsum payment or one time payment is not covered under section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
Bombay High court held In the case of The CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia & others. that amendments in the statute unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively.
