-
Since the assessee's declaration was accepted and Nil tax payable was determined. Therefore, as per Sec. 4(3) of the said act, assessee is required to withdraw the appeal.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24780 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
On a plain reading of clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of the IT Act, it is evident that the same does not exclude the principle of proportionality in any manner.
M/s. Models Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24711 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 80IB(10)
-
Section 260A does not empower the HC to reconsider its earlier view in the same proceedings and reformulate a question of law which it had refused to formulate citing the MP HC ruling in Kishanchand v. Ramkrishna.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs V. M. SALGAONKAR BROTHERSPRIVATE LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24507 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by Section 68.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sadiq Sheikh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24493 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
In the light of the lockdown such explanation cannot be brushed aside or rejected as being flimsy or frivolous. This is more so in view of the beneficial nature of the order dated 03.04.2020.
Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and another
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24367 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 197
-
Section 47(iii) makes it very clear that any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust shall not be liable to income tax under the head capital gains and the proviso to the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24334 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Once the corresponding liability in the accounts had been shown, the depreciation on the asset should be given irrespective of the fact that for that year only part payment was made for acquisition of the asset.
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs M/s V.Hotels Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24291 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of Section 271(1)(c). This has certainly vitiated the order of penalty.
Shri. Omprakash T. Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23080 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Since the amount is paid on the basis of actual use of software and not for acquisition of software, there was no question of treating the said expenses as capital expenditure. Therefore, Tribunal held that the authorities below had wrongly held the software payment to be capital expenditure in nature and accordingly upheld the stand taken by the assessee directing the Assessing Officer to treat the software expenses as revenue expenditure.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS M/S. AKER POWERGAS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22951 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83132&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since assessee had furnished all the details in respect of the alleged penny stock, reassessment initiation (beyond four years) is not valid.
Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22835 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - For AY 2015-16, interest u/s. 234B, 234C is not chargeable with respect to tax liability under minimum alternate tax.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22834 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 234B, 234C
-
HC - Revenue having invoked powers u/s.245, cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22782 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 245
-
As we revert back to the reasons furnished by Respondent No. 2 for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 after referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt of ₹ 23,98,014.00 and therefore, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
GATEWAY LEASING PVT. LTD., VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI, UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22759 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83033&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order of the ITAT does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference and no substantial question of law arises.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 Vs Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22753 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the show-cause notice, would be a jurisdictional issue and can be raised before the High Court for the first time, even if not raised before the Tribunal.
Ventura Textiles Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Mumbai City-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22752 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
After the judgment of this Court in AICFL, the very basis for re-opening the assessment no longer survived.
Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (InternationalTaxation)-1(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22751 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The true purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of those goods entered on the other side of the account so that the cancelling out of the entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions on which there had been actual sales in the course of the year showing the profit or loss actually realised on the year’s trading.
M/S. J.S. & M.F. BUILDERS VERSUS A.K. CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22672 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82991&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal noted that the basis of the entire transfer pricing adjustment was the supply of gas turbines to PWD (CWG) by the AE. Relevant clauses of the contract and noted that eligibility condition for participating in tender was submission of registration certificate under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, besides submission of certificate of being original equipment manufacturer of gas turbines. Admittedly, assessee was not a manufacturer of gas turbines but its AE was. However, the AE did not have VAT registration certificate. Therefore, it was not qualified to participate in the tender.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22670 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82971&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the AAR application it came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed as set off under Section 74 and the claim of carry forward of loss by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are not losses incurred by the assessee, rather those are losses incurred by Aberdeen Delaware Business Trust Asia Pacific Inc Japan Fund which is a different person being a trust fund or sub-trust.
ABERDEEN ASIA PACIFIC INCLUDING JAPAN EQUITY FUND VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1 (1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22668 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82975&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It has been the consistent stand of the assessee which has been accepted by the First Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Tribunal that the business of the assessee centered around customers / beneficiaries making deposits in cash amounts and in lieu thereof taking cheques from the assessee for amounts slightly lesser than the quantum of deposits, the difference representing the commission realized by the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 VERSUS ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAHASAGAR SECURITIES AND RICHMOND SECURITIES PVT. LTD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22667 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82976&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.