-
There are no categorical findings that the activities of GIDC are not genuine or are not in accordance with the objects of the trust or the institution. Merely because, by reference to the amended provisions in Section 2(15), it may be possible to contend that the activities of GIDC are covered under the proviso, that, by itself, does not render the activities of GIDC as non-genuine activities so as to entitle the CIT to exercise powers under Section 12AA(3) of the said Act.
GOA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI GOA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20994 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82040&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Commissioner (Appeals) basically directed the AO to revisit the issue of disallowance but did not specifically interfere with or set aside the endorsement relating to the issuance of notice under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. From the tenor of the Order dated 16.11.2000, it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not wish to interfere with the endorsement at the stage of disposal of the appeal as the endorsement would undoubtedly lose its efficacy, in case, upon remand, the AO were to revoke the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- thereby reducing the returned income to that which was originally declared by the appellant at the time of filing of the initial returns for the Assessment Year 1997-1998.
GANGADHAR NARSINGAS AGRAWAL (HUF) , VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 1, MARGAO, GOA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20993 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82041&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though, assessee was not required to prove source of the source, nonetheless, Tribunal took the view that Assessing Officer had made inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata and collected all the materials which proved source of the source.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Vs M/s. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20987 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
This Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. has answered the two questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the said decision, this Court vide affirming the similar findings returned by the Tribunal held that amount retained by a bank / credit card agency out of the sale consideration of tickets booked through credit cards is not covered under the definition of 'commission' or 'brokerage' given in explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and in such circumstances, assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H in respect of this amount.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 VERSUS M/S. AIR INDIA CHARTERS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20975 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82037&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254(2): The limitation of six months for filing a rectification application was substituted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016. Therefore, for assessment years prior thereto, the limitation period may be construed to be four years from the date of the order. Even otherwise, if the view is taken that the limitation period is six months, it is sufficient if the application is filed before that date. It is not necessary that the order has to be passed before that date. The assessee or AO can only bring the mistake to the notice of the Tribunal but have no control over the Tribunal. Neither party can be made to suffer for the inability of the Tribunal to pass an order within the limitation period (All judgements referred)
PCIT vs. ITAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20972 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 68 Cash Credits: The assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. The fact that the source of the source is suspect and that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee does not mean that an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee (Veedhata Tower 403 ITR 415 (Bom) followed)
Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20971 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
S. 254(1): This manner of disposing appeals by the Tribunal is not expected of it and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law and justice. The Tribunal cannot refer to decisions on its own without giving the litigant an opportunity to distinguish it. This results in a breach of the principles of natural justice. It also cannot omit to deal with the decisions relied upon by the litigant. Not dealing with the cited decisions leads to the order being bad as an order without reasons
Bhavya Construction Co vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20970 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The identity of the investors were not in doubt. The assessee had furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the investors as well as copy of the bank accounts in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions. In so far credit worthiness of the creditors were concerned, the bank accounts of the investors showed that they had funds to make payments for share application money. The assessee was not required to prove source of the source. Nonetheless, the inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata proved source of the source (PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161 (SC) distinguished)
PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20969 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
When transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per Section 194H would not be made since the payment was not for commission or for brokerage. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 194H of the Act was not applicable on discounts given by the assessee to the distributors of prepaid SIM cards.
Vodafone Cellular Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20962 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 194H
-
Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, provided the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” AND ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20953 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81994&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Following the amendment, it is now a statutory requirement that the Assessing Officer has to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before directing the assessee to get the accounts audited under the said provision. Reverting back to Sahara India Supreme Court held that special audit is more or less in the nature of an investigation and in some cases, may even turn out to be stigmatic.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS VILSON PARTICLE BOARD INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20952 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81996&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 28(iv) of the IT Act does not apply on the present case since the receipts of ₹ 57,74,064/- are in the nature of cash or money. Section 41(1) of the IT Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SICOM LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20936 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81959&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of discharge of burden by the assessee, burden shifted to the revenue; but revenue could not prove or bring any material to impeach the source of the credit. Though Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel, has pointed out that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee had discharged the onus which was on him to explain the three requirements, as noted above.
MR. GAURAV TRIYUGI SINGH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-24 (3) (1), MUMBAI-51
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20935 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81965&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For levy of fringe benefit tax, relationship of employer and employees is the sine qua non and the fringe benefits has to be provided by the employer to the employees in the course of such relationship. In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd this Court referred to Circular No. 8/2005 of CBDT which indicated that the objective of taxing perquisite of fringe benefit is both on the ground of equity and economic efficiency.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS M/S. ARISTO PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20934 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81967&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the three questions are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd as held from a reading of the relevant provisions of Section 10A it is more than clear to us that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE VERSUS AESSEAL INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20933 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81971&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner may file appeal u/s. 246-A before the first appellate authority within a period of four weeks from today. It is also open to the petitioner to file an application for stay along with the appeal in which event the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law.
Deepak Kochhar Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20928 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
We note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Arora had relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Khan which has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer. In view of this law laid down by this Court, substantial questions of law as framed do not arise.
Sanjay L. Sonavane Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20903 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54F
-
S. 83 CGST Act: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the power is not to be routinely exercised. S. 83 confers power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard Govt revenue but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power u/s 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power. If proceedings are launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person cannot be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued u/s 70 to him.
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20892 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It cannot be stated that the decision of the Tribunal is an elaborate one but on the reading of the decision it is seen that the reference is made to all the relevant facts which are necessary to make distinction between a Income from Business and the Income from House Property.
City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20891 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer that the discount allowed to the distributors by the Respondent – assessee company is on account of principal to principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20848 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81855&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.