Shri Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) In the context of interest, there are three crucial dates. The date of the accident is a date in reference to which the entire compensation is calculated. The date of filing of the claim petition is the date from which the claimant […]
Since the delivery of the notice of reassessment could not be made at the address of assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company however, no such steps were taken, therefore, service of notice was not complete and reopening of assessment was invalid.
Ess Infraproject Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The issue of the saving of Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1992 on introduction of CGST Act, 2017 is an issue that requires detailed consideration. This would be appropriately done at the final hearing. Thus, granting of interim relief at this stage would […]
C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. Vs Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors. (Bombay High Court) We find that the fundamental submission of the petitioner before the AARA was the fact that money would stand covered by the definition of ‘goods’ under Section 2(52) of the GST Act so long as the same is not used as […]
High Court held that Income Tax Refund cannot be withheld by Income Tax Department for error in Computer System. It held that the computer system cannot override the factual aspects and if Income Tax refund is payable than whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Section 32(1)(ii) Rights acquired by the assessee under the said agreement not only give enduring benefit, protected the assessee’s business against competence, that too from a person who had closely worked with the assessee in the same business. The expression ‘or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation and make Assess eligible to claim depreciation on Non-compete rights.
Pr. CIT Vs Mr. Peter Savio Pereira (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal notices that the assessee had received sale consideration partly in cash and partly in form of new flats to be constructed and to be allotted to the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that the assessee’s investment in such new […]
Pr. CIT Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op Bank (Bombay High Court) The division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that penalty cannot be levied under the Income Tax merely on the ground that a deduction claim was rejected by the department. The assessee is a Co-operative Bank. For the relevant A.Y under consideration, the […]
CIT Vs M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd (Bombay High Court) Assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call centre operations etc. Looking to the nature of services outsourced, it was held that the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work […]
Where the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income.
