-
HC - Revenue cannot invoke Sec. 68 on the ground that assessee had routed its own money through complex web of corporate structures.
Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -14
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17948 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
HC - Taxation on FCCBs - In case of conversion of foreign currency convertible bonds, the cost of acquisition in the hands of non-resident Indian investors would be the conversion price determined on the basis of the price of the shares as in this case, the National Stock Exchange, on the date of conversion of foreign currency convertible bonds into shares.
KINGFISHER CAPITAL CLO LTD., VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3, MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17947 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77166&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Expenditure in oil exploration u/s 42 allowed even when the block was surrendered.
Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17940 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 42
-
HC - Deduction u/s 43B could not have been disallowed by insisting on a direct correlation between the duty paid and the goods manufactured.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 PUNE. VERSUS SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17935 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 92C(1) Transfer Pricing: Even if the assessee does not report the specified transaction & the AO has no occasion to notice it, the TPO has no jurisdiction to suo moto determine the ALP. He has to call for a reference from the AO. Alternate remedy is not a bar if the action is without jurisdiction & can be severed from the rest
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17929 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 92C(1)
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Merely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed (CIT vs. Dharamshi B. Shah 366 ITR 140 (Guj) followed)
PCIT vs. Rasiklal M. Parikh
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17928 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Merely because the investment was considerably large and several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through a Mauritius entity would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device. The assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source (PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) referred)
PCIT vs. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17927 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
HC - TP adjustment - In relation to a specified domestic transaction, the TPO can undertake transfer pricing study only in relation to those transactions which are referred to him under sub-section (1) of Section 92C of the Act.
TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17904 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77099&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - IDS being a complete code in itself, credit of advance-tax, self-assessment tax not available against discharge of assessee's liability to pay tax, surcharge and penalty under IDS Scheme.
Umesh D. Ganore Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17903 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - The word 'Tax’ includes penalty and interest and as the burden of proof is shown on the directors to prove that they were not negligent etc., then it follows that the directors can be held responsible to pay penalty and interest when the company was liable to pay the penalty and interest u/s 179.
NANDKISHOR KAGLIWAL, SHRIRANG S. AGARWAL, MOHAMMAD ZAMIR KHAN, VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16905 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76100&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Deeming fiction u/s. 50C dealing with stamp duty valuation as sale consideration, would be applicable while computing capital gains exemption u/s. 54EC.
Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16901 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 50C, 54EC
-
S. 250: The CBDT should reconsider the direction in the Central Action Plan of offering incentives to CsIT(A) to enhance assessments and levy penalty. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the CIT(A) has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the CIT(A) there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16900 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
HC - Where substantial question of law relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is pending before High Court, there would be no question of launching prosecution.
M. SURESH COMPANY PVT LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16866 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76022&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus share capital: Though the reopening is based on information supplied by the investigation wing, the reasons do not specify that the investment was non-genuine. The AO cannot reopen to investigate into the source of genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors as it falls within the realm of fishing enquiries which is wholly impermissible in law
NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16843 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
HC - Reopening quashed - Subsequent year assessment does not form valid source of information to re-open assessment.
Precilion Holdings Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,International Taxation -3(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16836 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Assessee was seeking to carry forward accumulated loses u/s 74 when admittedly it had not filed any return of income, claiming loses for the earlier Assessment Year under the Act and it was not an Assessee under the Act - AAR justified in answering the question in negative.
ABERDEEN INSTITUTIONAL COMMINGLED FUNDS LLC VERSUS THE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX), MUMBAI, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1, MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16808 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75946&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The action of the AO to pass the final order of assessment even before the period of four weeks had expired, cannot be approved.
M/S. ANKUR POWER PROJECT PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 15 (1) (1) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16807 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75948&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Scope for initiating special audit u/s. 142(2A) has been widened w.e.f. 1.6.2013 whereby such powers can be exercised in several situations.
Multi Commodity Exchange of India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16806 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 142(2A)
-
S. 147/148: If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts
Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16804 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147/148
-
HC - Settlement Commission does not have to invalidate application for settlement u/s 245D(2C) with retrospective effect.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , PUNE VERSUS INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ADDL. BENCH - I, MUMBAI & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16803 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75929&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.