Bombay High Court held that provision u/s 14(2) of the Income Tax Act does not empower the AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessees claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income.
Bombay High Court held that material on record doesnt satisfy that all the steps for recovering the tax dues from the company, accordingly, action under section 179 of the Income Tax Act against the directors for recovering the tax dues is unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any finding that non-recovery of tax due from the company can be attributed to any gross-negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the petitioner, no order could have been made u/s 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that as per provisions of section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act any order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 254, 263 or 264 should be made within a period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order is received. Order passed beyond the same will be time barred.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 in absence of any new information received by AO between the date of assessment order u/s 143(3) till the issuance of notice u/s 148 is unjustified and untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that denial of cenvat credit to the telecom communication companies on towers used to rendering telecommunication service is sustained. However, duty demand of ineligible cenvat credit issued beyond the period of limitation as the issue was a debatable issue.
Bombay High Court held that order of Tribunal directed the designated authority to calculate the tax amount applying the ratio of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co case. Designated authority had only to calculate the disputed tax by giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal. Order of Tribunal was not directing fresh examination on any issue.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment in absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts and also in absence of any tangible material is unjustifiable.
Revenue Department could only re-open an assessment beyond four years, if there was a failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly and not on the basis of reason to believe without satisfying jurisdictional condition required under provisions of Section 147
Bombay High Court held that Circular No.5-2012 dated 1 August 2012 will not be applicable to the instant case pertaining to AY 2008-09. Law to be applied is the one that is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. Accordingly addition unsustainable.
