-
The nature of the transaction will depend on facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly did not get weighed down by multiplication of decisions dealing with separate sets of fact. This approach adopted by the Tribunal would not lead to a substantial question of law as proposed by the Appellant.
SWASTIK REALTORS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19932 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79687&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
TDS u/s. 194A would not govern the taxability of the receipt as it is not a charging section and would arise only if the payment is in the nature of income of the payee.
Shri Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19873 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Till the approval was granted, Samruddhi Cement Ltd. could not have anticipated or contemplated flowing of the income in its coffers.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax – 1 & anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19872 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 234C
-
It was Grasim Industries and Samruddhi Cement Ltd. who had applied to the High Court for approval of the demerger scheme, the scheme was under contemplation and, therefore, approval anticipated. This does not mean that approval by the High Court was a certainty.
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. (AS THE SUCCESSOR OF SAMRUDDHI LTD.) VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – 1 & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19830 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79493&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest for the period between the filing of the claim petition and passing of the award is for the period when the claimant for the first time approached the Claims Tribunal asking the Tribunal to assess and award compensation and the time consumed in disposing of the Claim Petition.
SHRI RUPESH RASHMIKANT SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19828 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79498&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
During the course of assessment of AY 2013-2014, the AO noticed that the assessee had received loan of ₹ 10.27 crores from various firms and companies in AY 2012-13. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to such firms also, which were returned back or were not responded to.
AFRICAN DAISY REALTY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19819 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79479&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The impugned expenditure on renovation and interior work of stadium incurred by Cricket Club was for upgradation of the existing facilities and did not create a new asset or a source of enduring benefit and hence, not capital in nature.
The Cricket Club of India Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19779 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence and record and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
M/S. ROYAL RICH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19766 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79352&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 VERSUS M/S. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19765 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79351&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The learned Counsel for the parties agree that these substantial questions of law be taken up for consideration together.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS V.S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19764 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79350&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: No rational person with sound mind will invest huge amount in the share subscription of a paper/shell company having no worthwhile business/project in hand at such a huge premium. The onus is on the assessee to to prove the genuineness of the transaction as well credit worthiness of the share subscribers. The failure to produce the subscribers and statement of the director that the entire investment is bogus justifies the addition
Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19760 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
Quashed assessee's self-proclamation for sale of immovable property attached under Schedule II Part III, opining it to be barred by limitation under Rule 68 of schedule II.
Sapana Charudatt Ranadive Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19745 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: The decision of the authorities to demand payment of 20% of the disputed demand is in consonance with the department's circulars. There are no extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one imposed by the authorities. The contention that the assessee that he received no consideration and no tax could have been demanded from him is subject matter of the Appeal proceedings and cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal
Kalpana Ashwin Shah vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19709 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section220(6)
-
Neither of the decisions nor other decisions placed before us by the Counsel for the Petitioner, however, lays down the proposition in law that such requirement of hearing would include personal hearing.
NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19696 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79240&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Crux of Section 19 of SICA is that where any waiver or concession is to be granted by the Central Government, State Government or the like under the scheme, the scheme would be circulated to such authority for its consent and only upon such consent being given, that such term in the scheme would be binding to such Government or authority.
Olympia Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19693 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 19
-
HCIt is also an admitted position that the petitioner had not intimated to the Department about her change of address. After receiving the envelope containing the notice from the postal department, till 31.3.2018 which was the last date for service of such notice, the department took no further steps.
HARJEET SURAJPRAKASH GIROTRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19681 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79224&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The test laid down by Lord Cave L.C. in British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd., was to the effect that when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, there was very good reason for treating such expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue, but to capital.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VERSUS SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19648 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79181&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the context of income tax concession, in para 2.1 of the said scheme, the reference was made to the Department’s letter dated 15.2.2012 stating that the company had not quantified its tax liability in the projected statement and that the reliefs sought by the company can be considered only after the details are received from the company.
OLYMPIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19632 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79129&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner was informed that the refund cannot be issued in view of Section 143(1D), since notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is already issued. A reference is also made to a draft assessment order for the year under consideration, which if ultimately finalized would give rise to a tax demand from the Petitioner instead of department paying refund.
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19623 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79102&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts as noted, are not seriously in dispute. The assessee’s share application money remained with its AE for a considerable period of time before the shares were allotted. AO, therefore, treated this transaction as one of loans.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 VERSUS M/S. STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19610 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79063&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.