-
We are satisfied that the notice dated 10th January 2014 impugned in this petition is barred by limitation since it is issued beyond a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b).
PAVAN MORARKA AND RACHNA MORARKA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (3) , MUMBAI, THE UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28445 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86634&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There has been a full and true disclosure of the material facts by petitioner and it is a clear case of change of opinion to take a different view relying on the same set of documents. Change in opinion cannot construe 'reason to believe'.
MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3 (2) & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28443 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, the courts are bound to construe them in the ordinary sense in their judgments.
Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28437 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational / substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore notice issued to a dead person is not valid.
RANIBEN KHIMJI PATEL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (3), MUMBAI, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – RANGE 7, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28425 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86615&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether compensation is received for negative restrictive covenant or non-compete with business of the company, compensation relatable to such activity would be a capital receipt.
NEVILLE TULI VERSUS THE ITO 3 (2) (4) , MUMBAI AND INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28415 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86595&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no material to justify the formation of reason to believe that income escaped assessment.
Tata Sons Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28408 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.
Nishith Madanlal Desai Vs Commisioner of Income Tax-1(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28406 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The refund application will be processed and refund orders will be issued within two weeks from today.
Tata Communications Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28394 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Interest shall be paid at the rate prescribed under Section 244A(1)(b) for the period from the date of payment of tax, i.e., 7th January, 2011.
ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3 (1) , MUMBAI, DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -II MUMBAI, UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28372 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86551&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revisionary jurisdiction is not as wide as appellate jurisdiction, at the same time cannot be confused with power of review, which is limited in nature.
Hapag Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28366 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The reasons for proposed re-opening clearly indicates that Respondent No. 1 wants to re-open only on the basis of change of opinion which, as held time and again by various Courts, cannot be a ground for reopening.
Tata Sons Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28351 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
When on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Revenue, it would not be open to it to reopen the assessment based on the very same material to take another view.
Lintas India Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28268 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax Officer.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS ASST. /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 77 (1) (1) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-7, MUMBAI, THE UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28259 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86441&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for re-assessment.
Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28222 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Re-opening of the assessment without any basis and merely change of opinion is not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.
BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 (1), MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1 AND UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28214 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86409&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since reopening of the assessment being at the behest of the audit party, the reopening of the assessment is misconceived, incorrect and bad in law.
MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14 (2) (1) , MUMBAI & 2 ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28212 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86413&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The usage of expression in the reasons 'there has been escapement of income by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts' is clearly made as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to Section 147 of the Act.
TECHENGG PROJECT SERVICES AND EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MAHANDER SINGH CHAUHAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28197 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86381&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the primary facts necessary for assessment were fully and truly disclosed and AO then proceeded to form a conclusive view, then reopening basis same material considering disallowance in subsequent AY was not permissible.
Oracle Financial Services Software Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of India Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28194 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
While beneficial circulars have to be applied retrospectively, oppressive circulars would have prospective application.
Goldline Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28193 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
Mere change of opinion does not furnish a justification for formation of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIA TAX CIRCLE 13 (1) (1), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28189 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86368&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.