Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)- The High Court examined in detail the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976 (MZA) and observed that Union of India had no sovereignty over the EEZ. The Union of India only had certain sovereign rights over the EEZ. The High Court […]
Cine max India Limited Vs Union Of India & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)- While upholding Sec.65[105][zzzz] of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75[5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010, we hold that the provision of Sec. 65[105][zzzz] introducing service tax is not attracted if
CIT Vs B D Patel Quarry Works Private Limited (Gujrat High Court)- Appeal filed by the revenue would not be barred by the Board’s circular even if the assessee files a loss in the return on the ground of the tax effect being “Nil” or lower than the monetary limit fixed by the Board and, in such cases, the notional tax effect should be taken into account.
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 15/6/2011 delivered by Honourable Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the matter of EPFO Vs. Roll well Forge Ltd. on the issue of initiating recovery action before expiry of limitation period of appeal prescribed under Sec.7-1 of the Act. While overturning the decision of Single Bench
Kanubhai M. Patel HUF Vs Hiren Bhatt (Gujarat High Court)- In the present case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010, whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010.
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs UoI (Gujrat HC at Ahemdabad) Whether the assessee is entitled to waiver of interest u/s 234B & 234C relying on the circular dated 23.05.2006 in which waiver is given on account of non-adjustment of seized cash by the department against the tax liability though at the time of making of application of waiver such circular was superseded by circular dated 26.06.2006 in which no such waiver was permitted. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
CIT Versus Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad) – The tribunal however, was of the opinion that the assessee company had undertaken activities in earlier year in accordance with its main objects contained in memorandum of Articles of Association of the company.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
TRO v Industrial Finance Corpn. of India and Ors. (Gujrat HC)- The charges created against the property, by the mortgaging of the property by the assessee-borrower in favour of the financial institution during the pendency of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be declared as void against any claim in respect of income tax if the same was made for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceedings, or without notice of tax or other sum payable by the assessee.
CIT v Kokilaben A Shah (Gujrat HC) – Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.
