Madhuri Doulatram Choitram Vs Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) (Bombay High Court) It is one thing to say that a member of the family other than, or in the absence of, a Karta, may be permitted to prosecute the suit on account of special circumstances of a given case. And a completely different thing to claim […]
Bombay HC held that in case, the deductor has failed to upheld the correct details in form 26AS the benefit should be given to the assesssee on the basis of evidence produced before the Department.
Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is that Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the said amount of Rs.80 lakhs is deemed to be unexplained expenditure under proviso, to section 69C, of the IT Act, without […]
PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued […]
Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done
The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of registration of their appeals filed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act since they have not deposited the ten per cent of the disputed amount now mandated under the amended provision of Section 26 of the Act. They have challenged the validity of the amended provisions and the legislative competence of the State.
In the present case the Chief Commissioner of Income tax is not the officer specified in section 151 of the Act. There is thus a breach of requirement of section 151(2) of the Act regarding sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to succeed.
In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it is necessary to note that the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the ITAT have concurrently held that notwithstanding the nomenclature of the settlement, or the fact that the settlement is incorporated in the Consent Decree, the same is not a family settlement as such, the principle in Sachin Ambulkar (supra) is inapplicable.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v/ s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 has held that sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in […]
Where assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call center operations, etc. and the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work therefore, work outsourced was in the nature of clerical work and was rightly deducted under section 194C.
