Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Bombay High Court — Direct Tax

1,071 rulings

  1. Bombay High Court · 08 Jul 2019
    Taxing notional rental income on legally 'unoccupiable' commercial property is declined.

    Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19609 (HC-BOMBAY)

  2. Bombay High Court · 05 Jul 2019
    The Tribunal has come to a conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in payment of fees to ICICI Ltd. had nothing to do with the expansion of the capital base of the company and that the Assessee had clearly made out a case that it was for restructuring of its loan and was by way of a revenue expenditure.

    THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VERSUS SESA INDUSTRIES LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19595 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79022&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Bombay High Court · 04 Jul 2019
    Assessee's challenge against reopening notice by Hyderabad based AO is refused.

    HSBC Holdings PLC Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 and ors

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19593 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Bombay High Court · 04 Jul 2019
    The amendment in Section 32(2) of the Act is applicable from Assessment Year 2002-2003 and subsequent years. It further observed that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an Assessee on 01.04.2002 will be dealt with in accordance with provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as it stood before the said amendment.

    THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S. GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT. LTD., WALUJ AURANGABAD

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19583 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79017&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Bombay High Court · 03 Jul 2019
    S. 147/ 148: Even in a case where the return is accepted u/s 143(1) without scrutiny, the fundamental requirement of income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment must be satisfied. Mere non-disclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment. There has to be something beyond an unintentional oversight or error on the part of the assessee in not disclosing such receipt in the return of income. In other words, even after non-disclosure, if the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income. The attempt of further verification would amount to rowing inquiry

    The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19577 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 148

  6. Bombay High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    Action of respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained. Section 179 of the Act undoubtedly authorizes the Department to recover unpaid tax dues of a private company from its directors, however, this is subject to certain legal requirements contained in the said provision.

    VANRAJ V. SHAH VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10 (1) (1) & ANR.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19559 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78992&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Bombay High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    The order passed by the Assessing Officer is palpably bad in law and exceeds its jurisdiction, relegating a litigant to appeal remedy will be wholly futile and in facts of the present case also lead to undue hardship.

    TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (3) (2), MUMBAI AND ORS.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19558 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78993&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Bombay High Court · 26 Jun 2019
    S. 6, 68, 69: Law explained on (i) when an Indian citizen or person of Indian origin can be said to have come on "visit to India" so as to qualify as a "Non Resident" u/s 6(6) r.w. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003 & (ii) whether amount found deposited in a foreign bank is taxable in India u/s 68 & 69 if the assessee is a "Not Ordinary Resident"

    PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19536 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 6, 68, 69

  9. Bombay High Court · 27 Jun 2019
    Mere nondisclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment.

    The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1) & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19529 (HC-BOMBAY)

  10. Bombay High Court · 24 Jun 2019
    S. 40A(9): The provision is not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. Even contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds have to be allowed as a deduction if they are genuine in nature

    PCIT vs. State Bank Of India

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19513 (HC-BOMBAY)

  11. Bombay High Court · 20 Jun 2019
    S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on Intangible asset: Rights acquired under a non-compete agreement gives enduring benefit & protects the assessee's business against competition. The expression "or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights (Ferromatice Milacron India 99 TM.com 154 (Guj) followed)

    PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 32(1)(ii)

  12. Bombay High Court · 13 Jun 2019
    Service-tax component of insurance commission payment to agents will not require TDS deduction.

    Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs THE CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19448 (HC-BOMBAY)

  13. Bombay High Court · 08 Jun 2019
    S. 9(1)(vi) 'Royalty': The insertions of Explanations 5 & 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2015 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1976, even if declaratory and clarificatory of the law, will not apply to the DTAAs. The DTAAs are a bilateral agreement between two Countries and cannot be overridden by a unilateral legislative amendment by one Country (New Skies Satellite BV 382 ITR 114 (Del) & Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) followed)

    CIT vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19412 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 9(1)(vi)

  14. Bombay High Court · 06 Jun 2019
    ITAT order is upheld and deletes income addition of Rs. 85 cr. in the hands of assessee (a US company) despite invoices raised and services rendered to party.

    Bechtel International Inc Vs The Commissioner of Income, InternationalTaxation-1

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19404 (HC-BOMBAY)

  15. Bombay High Court · 10 May 2019
    HC - TP Adjustment - The comparison has to be region /country specific, which in this case, the TPO has completely ignored.

    PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 VERSUS M/S AUDCO INDIA LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19234 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78618&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Bombay High Court · 07 May 2019
    HC - Since assessee revised income voluntarily before he was confronted with the incorrect claim as original declaration of income suffered from a bonafide unintended error, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c).

    THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 VERSUS M/S. PADMINI TRUST

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19210 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78591&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Bombay High Court · 06 May 2019
    HC - Grandfathering clause under amended India-Mauritius DTAA provides that the gain arising from sale of shares in an Indian Co. acquired on or before 31.3.2017, could not be taxed in India - AO's Sec. 197 order denying 'Nil' withholding tax certificate to assessee quashed.

    Indostar Capital Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19209 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 197

  18. Bombay High Court · 02 May 2019
    HC - Exemption u/s 54F would be available on transfer of residential unit in Co-operative Housing Society which is constructed on a leased land.

    Shri Rahul Uday Tuljapurkar Vs Shri Rahul Uday Tuljapurkar

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19208 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section.54F

  19. Bombay High Court · 06 May 2019
    HC -Scope of amendment in 115JB by Finance Act, 2012 - Sub-­section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -3 VERSUS UNION BANK OF INDIA, MASHREQ BANK PSC, BANK OF INDIA, M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19202 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78584&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Bombay High Court · 06 May 2019
    HC - Stay of demand - Normal formula contained in CBDT circular of collecting 20% disputed tax pending appeal, cannot be applied in the present case - Directed to deposit 50% disputed tax.

    BHARAT J. PATEL. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 (1) (1) & ORS.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19201 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78586&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.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.