Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication. Thirdly, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
Legal expenses incurred to protect the Directors of the company in respect of the complaints filed against them in their individual capacity will not allowed under section 37 as business expenses.
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court) Section 78 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Related Laws (Amendments, Validation and Savings) Act, 2017, which saves Section 64 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid. Bombay High Court has held that by virtue of Section 78 of State […]
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
Since firm envisaged payment to a outgoing partner on the basis that the partner would have rendered service during his tenure but could not enjoy the fruits thereof on account of the fact that the work having remained incomplete, the concerned client had not been billed for the work already done, therefore, payment to the partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title. Thus, payment made to the legal heir of deceased partner would be an admissible expenditure for firm.
Pr. CIT Vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM):However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation and discarded the Revenue’s theory that profit of the assessee’s company were passed on to the clients. It was also noticed that the Revenue has not contended that the client code […]
Since during the period the property was legally not occupiable and not occupied because the building in which property was situated was not given Occupancy Certificate (OC), therefore, issue for charging of tax on notional rental basis and the question of interpretation of section 23(1)(a) did not arise at all.
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The main contention of the Petitioner is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that since the hearing was only by three members and the impugned order is by four members, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. The […]
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Income Tax Authorities for releasing the refund of Rs. 43.25 Crores (rounded off) with applicable interest pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-2014. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on […]
