-
The invocation of Sec. 241A was without authority of law in absence of refund being determined u/s 143(1).
Tata Communications Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20218 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 143(1), 241A
-
There is no dispute from the record that notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was never issued to the Assessee before initiating of proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his Order dated 13.09.2004 has given several reasons as to why the issuance of such notice was not a prerequisite for initiating of assessment proceedings under Section 158 BC.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS M/S. FOMENTO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20141 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79982&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 41(1) (old & unpaid liability for sundry creditors): It is well settled through series of judgments that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased. Such liability cannot be termed as bogus
PCIT vs. Pukhraj S. Jain (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20130 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 41(1)
-
It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent – Assessee. There is no concept of deferred expenditure unless it falls in specified Sections. It held that ordinarily, if the Assessee claims the expenditure in a particular year, it has to be allowed. We note that the expenditure incurred on DRUPA Exhibition is in the nature of marketing and selling expenses.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MANUGRAPH INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20126 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79956&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an integrated process of manufacture or producing bidi in this case, from the processed Tendu leaves, which qualifies for exemption. The placement of the word ‘processing’ in between ‘manufacturing’ and “or producing articles or things” under sub-section (1A) is also significantly indicate such intention of the Legislature.
GONDIA BEEDI LEAVES CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) , STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, NAGPUR AND OTHER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20124 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79958&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mr. Motwani, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out before this Court that at any point of time from 18.10.1997, when the decree, which is sought to be challenged before this Court, was passed, the applicant even remotely tried to contact her advocate to know the fate of litigation.
KANTA VERSUS MANJULABAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20096 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79878&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147/148: It is mandatory for the AO to follow the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections. The disposal of the objections in the assessment order is not sufficient compliance with the procedure. The failure to follow the procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires (Bayer Material Science 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron (Bom) followed)
Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20090 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 148
-
Provisional attachment u/s 281B of income tax refund of Rs. 180 cr. arising to Vodafone Idea Ltd. pursuant to processing of return u/s. 143(1) for AY 2016-17 is quashed.
Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, CPC, Bangalore & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20060 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It is a settled position in law that before commencing the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, the recorded reasons have to be given to the parties and its objections to it is considered and disposed of by an order. This is in accord what the directions of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft. Therefore, in the normal course an reassessment order without furnishing of reasons in support of the reopening notice would be set aside following the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. VSNL.
ASHOK HOTCHAND ADVANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -17 (1) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20058 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations as in this case.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3-MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. M.J. EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20038 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79826&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Liability of professionals acting as Non-executive directors: Practicing professionals are prohibited from acting as full time directors. They can only act as non-executive directors not performing administrative duties. Such persons cannot be prosecuted for offenses committed by the company. it will be a travesty of justice to prosecute all Directors if the offense is committed without their knowledge. The accounts are signed by such directors in a routine manner and they are not subject to vicarious liability (Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 34 followed)
Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20034 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(1): The Tribunal should not make general observations that there are "contrary decisions". This statement led us to direct counsel to examine the law and bring to our attention any decision contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills 123 ITR 429 etc. We are now informed by Counsel that there are no contrary decisions. All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. We request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations
PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20032 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
Where queries have been raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to the same, then the non-discussion of the same or non-rejection of the response of the assessee, would necessarily mean that the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee. Thus an opinion is formed during the regular Assessment proceedings, bars the Assessing Officer to reopen the same only on account of a different view.
Marico Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) and Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20029 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Reopening notice has been issued on the basis of the information obtained during the course of assessment of earlier assessment year u/s 143(3). Such information can form a valid basis for issuing reopening notice. In the facts of the present case, the assessment for the subject assessment year was by virtue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act.
BELAZIO CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-12 (1) (3).
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20013 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79797&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No application while dealing with the Act. It is also his submission that the reliance upon decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Minor Bababhai is inappropriate, as in that case, the Revenue has accepted that the amount due from the un-secured creditor were in the nature of capital assets. Thus, there was no dispute on the issue of 'capital asset' as in this case. Therefore, this appeal deserves admission.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -4 VERSUS M/S. SIEMENS NIXDORF INFORMATION SYSTEMSE GMBH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20012 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79798&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Tribunal is advised to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations in order to save time and effort.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3-Mumbai Vs M/s. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20006 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Doctrine of promissory estoppel: Once a promise has been solemnly given by the State with an intention that it would be acted upon and which has been indeed acted upon and liabilities suffered by the promisee, the State cannot be permitted to backtrack on the promise and change its position so as to cause loss to the promisee. The eligibility for sales-tax exemption cannot be withdrawn under GST
K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19982 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 148, 282, Rule 127: Mere issue of a s. 148 notice is not sufficient. Service is essential. If the postal authorities return the notice unserved, the Dept has to serve under Rule 127(2) using one of the four sources of address (such as PAN address, Bank address etc). The failure to do so renders the reassessment proceedings invalid (All imp judgements referred)
Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19981 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148, 282
-
The work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff. There is no lethargy on the part of the Dept in filing up said posts. The Dept is expected to follow up the proposals to fill up the posts of Assistant Registrars in such quota as well as for issuing promotions for the posts of Deputy Registrars so that all these pots to the extent possible can be filled up at the earliest
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19980 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Where the Revenue accepts the view propounded by the assessee in response to the Revenue’s query, the AO has certainly to form an opinion whether or not the stand taken by the assessee is acceptable. Therefore, it must follow that where queries have been raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to the same, then the non-discussion of the same or non-rejection of the response of the assessee, would necessarily mean that the AO has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee.
MARICO LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19960 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79744&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.