-
For land to be excluded from capital asset, it has to be agricultural land in India; such land to be not agricultural must fulfill two conditions viz. it must be land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality or cantonment board and which has a population of not less than 10,000. These two conditions are pre-conditions and must be read conjunctively.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, THANE VERSUS ANTHONY JOHN PEREIRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21218 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82625&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer himself had recorded in the assessment order that the petitioner had redeemed the SARs during the financial year 1997-98 relating to the assessment year 1998-99 which is prior to insertion of clause (iiia) to Section 17(2) of the Act w.e.f 1.4.2000.
SUMIT BHATTACHARYA VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21217 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
View taken by the CIT(A) that 17.5% of the purchases be added to the total income of the assessee as the profit element was a reasonable one. It was also noted that the said percentage was accepted by the assessee with a view to close the litigation. Nothing was brought on record by the Revenue to contradict the findings recorded by the CIT(A).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, MUMBAI. VERSUS JAKHARIA FABRIC PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21216 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82627&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee had redeemed the SAR's prior to insertion of clause (iiia) to Sec.17(2). The said amount, therefore, could not have been treated as a perquisite to be included as income under the head salaries.
Sumit Bhattacharya Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21211 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Comparing the provision of Section 36(1)(vii), pre 1.4.1989 and post 1.4.1989, Supreme Court held that the position in law has become well settled. After 1.4.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. A claim of share broker assessee to deduction by way of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 VERSUS HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAFATLAL FINANCE CO LTD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21190 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82558&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession '. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) the expression “cess” is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income Tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament.
SESA GOA LIMITED, VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 1, PANAJI GOA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21188 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82562&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
After examining the requirement of Article 5 of the DTAA to constitute agency Permanent Establishment, Tribunal as a matter of fact held that none of the conditions as stipulated in Article 5(4) was applicable because Taj India was acting independently qua its distribution rights and the entire agreement was on principal to principal basis.
Taj TV Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21173 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication. Thirdly, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) -5 (2) (2), DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21145 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82486&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 156 of the Act which deals with notice of demand and thereafter Rule 15 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which says that notice of demand under Section 156 shall be in Form No. VII. Clause (3) of Form VII provides that the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act shall contain a provision informing the concerned assessee that if he did not pay the amount within the period specified, he would be liable to pay simple interest at one and one-half percent for every month or part of a month from the date commencing after end of the period in accordance with Section 220(2) of the Act.
VINAY DOLATRAI VALIA VERSUS A.S. THAKUR & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21142 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82490&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Cash Credits: The expression “any previous year” does not mean all previous years but the previous year in relation to the assessment year concerned. If the cash credits are credited in the FY 2006-07, it cannot be brought to tax in a later AY.
Ivan Singh vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21110 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
S. 254(2): The Writ Petition to challenge the ITAT's order dismissing the MA does not appear to be bonafide. In the garb of the MA, the Petitioner sought review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the Petitioner
Cavalier Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21095 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
Any legal expenses incurred by the assessee for borrowing money, irrespective of whether the borrowing went in for a revenue purpose or for a capital purpose, must be necessarily regarded as an item of revenue outgoing and allowed deduction for the said expenses to assesse.
Aker Powergas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21091 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
From the plain reading of the provisions of Section 68 of the IT Act, it does appear that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of Account maintained for any previous year and there is no proper explanation for such credit, the sum so credited can be charged to the income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the credits for the financial year 2006-07.
SHRI IVAN SINGH VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , GOA, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21072 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82218&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Though the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not the entire amount (Bholanath Polyfab 355 ITR 290 (Guj) followed, Kaveri Rice Mills 157 Taxman 376 (All) & La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) referred)
PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21046 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from ₹ 24,18,06,385.00 to ₹ 65,65,30,470.00 but having found that the purchases corresponded to sales which were reflected in the returns of the assessee in sales tax proceedings and in addition, were also recorded in the books of accounts with payments made through account payee cheques, the purchases were accepted by the two appellate authorities and following judicial dictum decided to add the profit percentage on such purchases to the income of the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, MUMBAI VERSUS RISHABHDEV TACHNOCABLE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21040 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82169&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to cancel the registration of a Trust u/s.12AA(3), the competent authority must be satisfied that the activities of the Trust are not genuine or that the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust and such satisfaction must be recorded as a matter of fact on the basis of specific materials on record.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21039 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 2(15), 12AA
-
The use of the expression may in Sec.254(2) is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there cannot be any extension of time beyond the said period of six months.
Income tax Appellate Tribunal Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21027 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
The membership card is only a personal privilege granted by the petitioner. Exchange and that no right to that card has ever been transferred to the card holder for the petitioner. Exchange so as to enable it's attachment by the Income Tax Department. So far as security deposit is concerned, petitioners would have a priority on the security deposits over the Income Tax Department.
STOCK EXCHANGE BOMBAY VERSUS VARUGHESE P. DANIAL, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16 (1) & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21022 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82124&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal had returned a finding of fact that the assessee had fled copies of purchase bills, copies of purchase/ sale invoices, challan cum tax invoices in respect of the purchases, extracts of stock ledger showing entry/exit of the materials purchased, copies of bank statements to show that payment for such purchases were made through regular banking channels, etc., to establish the genuineness of the purchases.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, MUMBAI VERSUS VAMAN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21013 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 153A: Once the assessment gets abated, the original return filed u/s 139(1) is replaced by the return filed u/s 153A. It is open to both parties, i.e. the assessee and revenue, to make claims for allowance or disallowance. The assessee is entitled to lodge a new claim for deduction etc. which remained to be claimed in his earlier/ regular return of income (Continental Warehousing Corporation 374 ITR 645 (Bom) referred)
PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20997 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 153A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.