-
The statutory show-cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act proposing to impose penalty was issued on the same day when the assessment order was passed i.e., on 28.02.2006. The said notice was in printed form. Though at the bottom of the notice it was mentioned 'delete inappropriate words and paragraphs', unfortunately, the Assessing Officer omitted to strike off the inapplicable portion in the notice i.e., whether the penalty was sought to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.
VENTURA TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-MUMBAI CITY-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22666 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82977&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The AO while considering the stay application has to act as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable.
Mansukhlal Amritlal Modi Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22621 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Had the principal amounts been paid promptly to the petitioners in terms of Section 269UG(1), it is the petitioners who would have got the benefit of the interest on the said amounts, in fact more, considering the delay in making the payments from 30.09.1994 to 21.07.1995.
Desiree M. Thakur and another Vs The Appropriate Authority and another
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22590 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The pharmacy store of the assessee was ancillary to the main object of running the hospital and therefore income accrued therefrom was incidental to the dominant object of running a hospital.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) Vs The National Health and Education Society
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22587 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 11(4A)
-
When learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the anomaly, Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel submitted on the basis of the instructions received from respondent No.1 who is present in the Court that there is no demand payable by the firm for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and consequently, question of raising of any demand against the petitioner does not arise. Further, petitioner having retired as partner of the firm with effect from 31.03.2012 raising any demand against the petitioner for assessment year 2013-14 and onwards also does not arise.
AARTI DHARMEN SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25 (1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22371 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable.
MAYUR KANJIBHAI SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER – 25 (3) (1) AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22370 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82829&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The sale of properties by the assessee has nexus with the business of the assessee, Thus, confirms the findings of the AO/ITAT. The finding of fact cannot be regarded as perverse, so as to give rise to any substantial question of law or so as to warrant interference.
Afonso Real Estate Developers Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22283 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
In the present case, the assessee had received Rs.57 lakhs due to waiver of loan, hence the requirement u/s 28(iv) was not satisfied and therefore could not be held as taxable.
Essar Shipping Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22281 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 28(iv)
-
Since the deletion of expression cess from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act and that too, under the guise of interpretation of taxing statute.
Sesa Goa Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ii)
-
It was not the case of the respondent-assessee that it was a mistake apparent from the record which was required to be rectified. As discussed above, all mistakes cannot be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. Only a mistake which is apparent from the record can be rectified under the said provision.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 MUMBAI VERSUS RONAK PARIKH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22271 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82698&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From a careful analysis, it is evident that there is a fundamental difference between loan and subsidy and the two concepts cannot be equated. While loan is a borrowing of money required to the repaid back with interest, subsidy is not required to be repaid back being a grant. Such grant is given as part of a public policy by the state in furtherance of public interest.
M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CITY III, MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22270 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82700&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have to bear in mind that there is always a presumption as to constitutionality of a statute and the burden lies heavily on him who challenges the constitutionality.
Anila Rasiklal Vs The Union of India and others
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22255 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
We do not find that question Nos.1 to 4 as proposed by the Revenue raise any substantial question for consideration of the Court.
VVF Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22253 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Prior to issuance of the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017, petitioners were subjected to proceedings under the Act though the income tax proceedings were concluded on December 30, 2017 to the effect that issue relating to escaped income was left to be decided by the authorities under the Black Money Act. It is also evident that income tax proceedings pertaining to the petitioners were reopened following receipt of information in respect of undisclosed asset by the competent authority in terms of agreements entered into by the Central Government under Section 90 or Section 90A of the Act.
ANILA RASIKLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22243 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82649&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A careful and conjoint reading of the two provisions i.e. Sections 105 and 108 would therefore make it clear that imposition of penalty is to be proceeded separately as a separate proceeding. Merely because in the assessment order the AO comes to a conclusion that the assessee had failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the credit of the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21227 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82631&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The powers under Section 147 of the Act have been now defined without any equivocation and without going to deep into it it is safe to say that a mere change of opinion cannot be considered within the ambit of phrase reason to believe.
THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21226 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82632&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The first appellate authority, after due deliberation, had returned a finding of fact that Taj India was not acting as agent of the assessee but it had obtained the right of distribution of the channel for itself and subsequently, it had entered into contracts with other parties in its own name in which the assessee was not a party.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -4 VERSUS TAJ TV LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21225 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Identical questions have been answered by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue vide order passed in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. National Health and Education Society as held pharmacy store of the respondent was ancillary to the main object of running the hospital.
CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI VERSUS NATIONAL HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21224 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82638&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondent-assessee had furnished the commencement certificate issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation dated 10.09.2007 and, occupation certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 26.02.2013, besides other documents which clearly shows that there were approvals which cover full occupation / permission for all the blocks of the building project.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 VERSUS RATTANCHAND RIKHABDAS JAIN CHEMICAL WORKS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21223 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82639&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On occasions where client codes for institutional trades were not modified by the broker, the trades were treated as squared off trades and a lower STT was levied. This resulted in the exchange charging a lower STT from the member broker while the member broker collected a higher delivery based STT from the client.
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Vs National Stock Exchange
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21220 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.