Ashoka Buildcon vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) :-An assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 27.12.2006. A reassessment order u/s 147 was passed on 27.12.2007. A show-cause notice u/s 263 was issued by the CIT on 30.4.2009 in respect of issues that werenot the subject matter of the reassessment order. The s. 263 notice was time-barred if reckoned from the date of the assessment order but was within time if reckoned from the reassessment order.
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean business profits as reduced by 90% of .. “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature“. The Tribunal took the view, on the basis of Bangalore Clothing 260 ITR 371 (Bom) that receipts towards recovery of freight, insurance
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 90% of recovery of freight, insurance and packing receipts amounting to Rs.49,14,076/, sales tax set off/refund amounting to Rs.38,33,148/and service income of Rs. 2,89,17,545/are not to be excluded from profits of business
The object of Section 80IA was to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure in the nation. A sound infrastructure is a sine qua non for economic development. Absence of infrastructure poses significant barriers to growth and development. A model which relied exclusively on the provision of basic infrastructure by the State was found to be deficient.
The principal challenge in these proceedings is to the notices issued by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to assess the income of the petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the ground that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of section 147.
A nominee has the right to the shares after the original shareholder’ s death and not the deceased’s heirs, Bombay High Court has ruled. Dismissing the application of a widow who sought permission to sell the shares belonging to her late husband, Justice Roshan Dalvi held that she had no right to do so since she was not the nominee. The nominee was her late husband’s nephew.
Cenvat credit on common inputs eligible only in terms of rule 6 when excisable & exempted products are manufactured. Credit can be availed only in terms of rule 6(3) and reversal of pro rata credit not permissible. Judgment of Chandrapur Magnet distinguished by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
S. 254 (2A) empowers the Tribunal to grant stay of recovery of demand for a period not exceeding 365 days. The 3rd Proviso to s. 254(2A) inserted by the Finance Act 2008 provides that if there is a delay in disposing of the appeal within the said period, the order of stay shall stand vacated even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
In a recent judgment of Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, the Bombay High Court has held (among other things) that in case of a “public company”, its shares are freely transferrable under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) even if the Articles of Association (the Articles) contain restrictive provisions relating to transfer of shares.
the agreement was on a principal to principal basis, (ii) the manufacturer had his own establishment where the product was manufactured, (iii) the materials required in the manufacture of the article or thing was obtained by the manufacturer from a person other than the assessee and (iv) the property in the articles passes only upon the delivery of the product manufactured, the contract was one of “sale” and there was no obligation to deduct tax u/s 194C. The fact that the assessee imposed restrictions on the manufacturer as to quality of the goods, user of trade marks etc are merely matters of business expediency.
