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.
In the present case, the capital assets has never come into existence and accordingly ITAT has allowed travelling expenses or ore testing charges only as revenue expenditure. The travelling expenses or manganese ore testing charges pertaining to the existing mine allowed by the ITAT
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. that we find no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has endorsed the views of the CIT Appeals whilst coming to such conclusions.
it was held that where complete disclosure of income had been made in the return of income and head of the income undergoes a change at the hands of the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (c).
Infosys & Wipro are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services is different and as such the profit earned there from cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee.
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. that section 44B enacts special provisions for computing profits and gains of shipping business in case of non-residents and section 172 is enacted for the purpose of levy and recovery of tax in the case of any ship belonging to or chartered by a non-resident operated from India.
Mumbai High Court held In the case of Pralhad @ Pratap s/o Tanbaji Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra that there has been a report also in the recent point of time that there are some more Corporations of the State of Maharashtra who have indulged into huge misappropriation of the taxpayers’ money in the alike fashion.
Bombay High Court held that Simultaneous penalty can be imposed both on the partners and partnership-firm under Section 112 (a) where the charge on the firm is of acting or omitting to act rendering the goods liable for confiscation and the notice issued to the partner makes out a separate case of abetment on his part.
