-
Capital Gains from Family Arrangements: A family settlement which is a settlement amongst family members in the context of their 'preexisting right' is not a "transfer". Such a settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as a separate interest. However, if there is no preexisting right, the family arrangement constitutes a "transfer". Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement so as to hold that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain (all imp verdicts referred)
P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20847 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials and completion of work, only a percentage of net profit on total turnover can be estimated (Mohommad Haji Adam & Paramshakti Distributors followed)
PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20846 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 68, 69C
-
In R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand the assessee was granted a lease of certain areas for mining of Mica for twenty years. The mines were earlier worked out by other companies for a period of fifteen years. The question was whether the expenditure for acquiring the leasehold rights were on revenue or a capital account. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the lease was a long term lease and it conferred right to excavate mica, that is to remove it, grade it and pay royalty to the government in accordance with the quality of mica extracted and thus, was a revenue expenditure.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GOA. VERSUS ZUARI INDUSTRIES LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20753 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81784&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 reopening for bogus purchases & accommodation entries: The omission of the AO to make an assertion in the reasons that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment is sufficient to set aside the reassessment notice. Also, a notice issued on change of opinion is bad
Usha Exports vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20663 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 147/ 151: As the Act provides for sanction by the JCIT, the sanction by the CIT does not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice is without jurisdiction. The fact that the sanction is granted by a superior officer is not relevant
PCIT vs. Khushbu Industries
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20582 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 151
-
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not valid if (i) there is no record of satisfaction by the AO that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee or (ii) If the notice is issued in the printed form and the inapplicable portions are not struck off (Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom) & New Era Sova Mine [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] followed, Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished).
PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20543 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement and on such basis, it cannot be held that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain.
P.P. Mahatme, Power of Attorney Lorna Margaret Pinto Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20467 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 149(3)
-
The forward foreign exchange contract entered into by the assessee to buy or sell foreign currency at an agreed price at a a future date cannot be considered as a contingent in nature as it creates a continuing binding obligation on the date of the contract against the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 VERSUS M/S. HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20426 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80373&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is also not disputed before us by the Revenue that the return of income in electronic form is self populted i.e. on filling in some entries, the other entries in the return are indicated by the system itself. Thus, the petitioner is unable to make a claim which according to him, he is entitled to in law.
SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (4), MUMBAI & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20356 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80306&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the obligation to deduct TDS is on the assessee’s customers and the consequences of non-deduction would be faced by the assessee’s customers. Therefore, in such a case, the legal right if any is of the customer who is required to deduct tax at source.
Quick Heal Technologies Ltd Vs The Union of India & Others
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20338 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The procedure of filing the return of income cannot bar an assessee from making a claim under the Act which he feels he is entitled to.
Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20336 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It is of importance that the legislature has used the phrase 'considered and decided' in the past tense. The phrase 'considered and decided' cannot be read as pending consideration in appeal or revision. To do so would be adding and changing the plain language of the statute.
Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-21(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20277 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 154
-
BCCI is allowed to directly make the tax payment in the account of the IT Department on behalf of the assessee, issues mandamus granting extension of 180 days for making payment.
Goa Cricket Association Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20276 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
No appeal under the Act from the impugned order is available to the Petitioner, however on detailed perusal of Sec. 264. A revision would lie to the Commissioner of Income Tax from any order passed by the authority subordinate to him in respect of any proceeding under the Act.
Aditya Marine Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) and others.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20268 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 264
-
The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. We do not see any reason why the petitioner should not get the refund which flows from the order of assessment.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, and ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20262 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM): Even if the Revenue's theory of the assessee having enabled the clients to claim contrived losses is correct, the Revenue had to bring on record some evidence of the income earned by the assessee in the process, be it in the nature of commission or otherwise. Adding the entire amount of doubtful transactions by way of assessee's additional income is wholly impermissible. The fate of the individual investors in whose cases the Revenue could have questioned the artificial losses is not known
PCIT vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20255 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Taxability of loan waivers u/s 28(iv), 41(1): Argument of Revenue that loan taken from agents/ dealers is on revenue account or that on waiver of the loan, its character undergoes a change and it becomes on revenue account is not correct. S. 28(iv) & 41(1) cannot apply if the loan is on capital account and the assessee has never claimed any deduction therefor in the past (Solid Containers 308 ITR 417 (Bom) distinguished, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 404 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20254 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28(iv), 41
-
The occasion to deduct tax at source would not arise. The service providers did not have PE in India. A retrospective amendment cannot cast an obligation to deduct tax when not in force at the relevant time i.e. when payment was made.
KPMG Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20238 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Stay of demand u/s 220(6)/254(2A): The Dept is not right in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfing of Road Agency vs. CBI (AIR 2018 SC 2039) to contend that any stay against recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the SC, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the AO to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances
Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20237 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Service Tax/ GST: The collection of non-refundable deposits by the assessee from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, does not result in the assessee providing management, maintenance or repair service as defined in Section 65(105)(zzg) of Finance Act 1994
CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20236 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.