-
The Assessee is not liable to pay DDT.
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Ministry of Finance
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27912 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50
-
The reasons for reopening of assessment has to be tested / examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded and those reasons cannot be improved upon and/or submissions much less substituted by an affidavit and/or oral submission.
PENINSULA LAND LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), MUMBAI & ORS.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27594 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85872&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Faceless assessment order passed without issuance of SCN or the draft assessment order in non-compliance with Sec. 144B shall be non est.
Trendsutra Client Services Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27391 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 144B
-
HC - Disputed tax as clearly defined in Section 2(1)(j)(A) of the DTVSV Act only refers to income-tax including surcharge and cess, but not interest or penalty - Revenue cannot demand interest paid u/s 244A while processing VsV application
Cooperative Rabobank U A Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27104 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 244A
-
Since petitioner has fulfilled the condition of deposit of 20% of amount for staying the effect and operation of order of demand. Therefore, the attached property should be released from attachment.
VIKALP PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-5, MUMBAI & ORS.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26957 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85246&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since section 3 of the DTVSV Act has become applicable, therefore the amount payable by the Petitioner will be equivalent to 50% of the disputed tax.
COOPERATIVE RABOBANK UA, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , MUMBAI AND UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26875 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 245 Adjustment of Refund: The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act. It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter. Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant (All imp judgements on s. 245 referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26540 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 245
-
Article 226/ s. 147: (i) A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. (ii) A s. 148 notice & s. 147 reassessment order passed against an amalgamated (non-existing) company is without jurisdiction. The defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B (All imp judgements referred)
Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26539 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
The DTVSV Act, 2020 is an Act to provide for resolution of disputed tax and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The emphasis is on disputed tax and not on disputed income. From a plain reading of the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and the Rules set out above, it emerges that the Designated Authority would have to issue Form 3 as referred to in section 5(1) specifying the amount payable in accordance with section 3 of the DTVSV Act. In the case of the declarant who is an eligible appellant not falling under section 4(6) nor within the exceptions in section 9 of the DTVSV Act, 2020, which fact appears to be undisputed
Sadruddin Tejani vs. ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26531 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 11/ Form No.10B: Under Circular No.2 / 2020 dated 03.01.2020, the CBDT has delegated the power to the CIT to admit belated applications in filing Form No.10B for AY 2018-19 and onwards for a period of only upto 365 days. There is no error or infirmity in this stand. Fixing a period of one year’s delay i.e., 365 days of delay for condonation of delay in filing Form No.10B for AY 2018-19 and onwards cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. However, there is also nothing in s. 119(2)(b) preventing or precluding the CBDT from passing a special order in any given case from condoning the delay in filing Form No.10B beyond 365 days despite passing a general order. The Petitioner should approach the CBDT which will deal with the claim on merit and in accordance with law
Little Angels Education Society vs. UOI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26465 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 11
-
Vivad se Vishwas Act: The CBDT's answer to question No.73 that the ineligibility u/s 9(a)(ii) relates to an assessment year and if for that assessment year a prosecution has been instituted, then the taxpayer would not be eligible to file declaration for the said assessment year even on issues not relating to prosecution would not only be illogical and irrational but would be in complete deviation from section 9(a)(ii). On a literal or purposive interpretation, the only exclusion visualized under the said provision is pendency of a prosecution in respect of tax arrear relatable to an assessment year as on the date of filing of declaration and not pendency of a prosecution in respect of an assessment year on any issue. To hold that an assessee would not be eligible to file a declaration because there is a pending prosecution for the assessment year in question on an issue unrelated to tax arrear would defeat the very purport and object of the Vivad se Vishwas Act
Macrotech Developers Limited vs. PCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26464 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Delayed payment cannot be construed to be a tax arrear within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of VsV Act and such prosecution cannot be said to be in respect of tax arrear.
Macrotech Developers Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26442 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The orders were passed manually without quoting DIN as mandated by CBDT Circular 19 of 2019, in the absence of which the orders giving effect to the appellate orders would be treated as invalid and non-est.
Salsette Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26379 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Interim relief is being granted by allowing petitioner- assessee to file return manually in view of a technical difficulty in e-filing utility while making loss set-off claim and had further restrained recovery proceedings.
S.K.Ventures Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26215 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Reliance placed on such uncorroborated and untested statement of Shri. Nilesh Bharani while making the additions to the income of the petitioner is highly questionable, that too, when for the previous assessment year he retracted the statement.
Dilipkumar P.Chheda Vs IncomeTaxOfficer-4(1), Thane & Ors.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26201 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
In the cases of fake invoices both adjudication and prosecution can be started simultaneously.
TEJAS PRAVIN DUGAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26046 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 138(1)
-
Even when the income tax department is in appeal before the High Court the assessee can ask for settlement under the Act and if he pays the determined tax amount, the income tax department would be under an obligation to withdraw the appeal.
Chempsec Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26045 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
CBDT on earlier 3 occasions had granted extension of due-dates considering the evolving situation in the country, but now CBDT cannot delay the filing of audit reports and income tax reports for an indefinite period.
CVO Chartered & CostAccountants’ Association, Mumbai and anr. Vs Union of India and anr.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26027 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 119
-
The grievance of the petitioner is now within a narrow compass. Matter is with respondent No.5 (CPC) which will intimate the petitioner regarding processing and release of refund the said respondents have admitted that certain amount of refund is due to the petitioner.
TATA Communications Limited Vs Union of India and ors.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26018 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Manufacturing or processing means transforming the original product into a commercially viable end product, distinct and different from the original product.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ramacanta Velingkar Minerals
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24824 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 10B
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.