-
HC - Profit Split Method is the Most Appropriate Method to determine the reasonable allocation of deemed taxable profits in India for NR's TV channel distribution revenue.
Commissioner of IncomeTax (IT)4 Vs M/s Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19184 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Error of TDS mismatch in the computer system - The computer system cannot override the factual aspects. If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence. Department shall take steps to rectify the error of TDS mismatch in the computer system.
M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19180 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78558&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Allowability of bad debts - Assessee had entered into a commercial venture by booking commercial space with a developer in the upcoming construction of commercial building, the payment being in the advance booking. The sum was not refunded. This was thus clearly a business loss.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19179 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78560&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 40A(2) - Apart from the administrative service expenditure from sister concern as per agreement being motivated by business decision, there is no element of transfer of profit, particularly when it is pointed out that the payee had also paid cash at the tax rate as that of the Assessee. - No addition
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE. VERSUS M/S. TATA TOYO RADIATOR PVT. LTD., PUNE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19178 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78561&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The computer system cannot override the factual aspects, If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19176 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 115JB (pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012) is not applicable to a banking company (also insurance & electricity cos) . The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company. When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails. The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively (Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 (Ker) followed)
CIT vs. Union Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19167 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 115JB
-
S. 250: The CBDT is empowered to lay down broad guidelines for disposal of appeals by CsIT(A). However, it cannot offer 'incentives' to CsIT(A) for making enhancement and levying penalty. Such policy transgresses the exercise of quasi-judicial powers & is wholly impermissible and invalid u/s 119. The 'Incentives' have the propensity to influence the CsIT(A) and they will be tempted to pass an order in a particular manner so as to achieve a greater target of disposal
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19109 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
S. 68/69 Bogus Purchases: Even if the purchases are bogus, the entire purchase amount cannot be added. As the department had not disputed the assessee's sales & there was no discrepancy between the purchases and the sales, the purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trader. The addition has to be restricted to the extent of the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases (N.K .Industries 292 CTR 354 (Guj), N. K. Proteins 250 TM 22 (SC) distinguished)
PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19108 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68/69
-
S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)
Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19083 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)
Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19081 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147, 148
-
HC - Reassessment u/s 147 -Department had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. - Notice u/s 148 is set aside
RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (4), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18075 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77388&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Receipt of bonus share - Shares given by company in proportion to the holding of equity capital by shareholders would, in the absence of express provision to be contrary be treated as capital and not income. AO has merely proceeded on the basis that the origin of the bonus shares being the shares held by the assessee by way of stock-in-trade, necessarily the bonus shares would also partake the same character.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 4 VERSUS M/S. ASHOK APPARELS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18074 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77389&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 as concerned employee was in the employment of the assessee and not of the US based company contrary to what the department contends.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX27 VERSUS SMT. SUPRIYA SUHAS JOSHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18073 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: The assessee cannot avoid the impact of s. 50C by claiming that his s. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation. Such interpretation renders s. 50C redundant
Jagdish C. Dhabalia vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18053 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
-
HC - Expenses incurred by assessee-company on abandoned project relating to setting up of a factory allowable u/s 37(1)
Graviss Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18045 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
HC - Department has virtually prevented the assessee (a senior citizen) from accessing his own funds in the bank accounts which would undisputedly cause great difficulty in meeting his day to day expenses - Grants limited relief to assessee by releasing the bank accounts from attachment while maintaining attachment on two properties.
Darius Sammotashaw Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit 2(4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18022 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 43D Interest on NPAs: Even though the special provision in s. 43D for taxing interest income on NPAs on receipt basis does not apply to NBFCs, it does not mean that NBFCs have to offer interest on bad or doubtful debts to tax on accrual basis. Such interest is not taxable on the real income theory
PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18016 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43D
-
S. 220(6)/ 281B Tax Recovery: Dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue. They should apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as binding decisions. The petitioner is being singled out for unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment
Milestone Real Estate Fund vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17996 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 220(6)/ 281B
-
HC - Sec. 50C would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset - Sec. 43CA was inserted w.e.f 1.4.2014 and was not applicable for AY prior to this date.
Zain Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer -18(3)(5) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17967 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43CA
-
S. 45(4): If new partners come into the partnership and bring cash by way of capital contribution and the retiring partners take cash and retire, the retiring partners are not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquish is their share in the partnership. As there is no transfer of a capital asset, no capital gains or profit can arise & s. 45(4) has no application (A. N. Naik 265 ITR 346 (Bom) distinguished, Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Karn) [FB] followed)
PCIT vs. Electroplast Engineers
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17963 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 45(4)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.