-
S. 22 ALV: If the assessee is a builder but is not engaged in the business of letting of property, the unsold flats held as stock in trade is assessable to tax under the head 'income from house property' (Sambhu Investment 263 ITR 143 (SC), Chennai Properties 373 ITR 673(SC), Rayala Corp 386 ITR 500 (SC) referred/ distinguished)
CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16369 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 22
-
Severe strictures issued against DCIT for illegal tax recovery. DCIT directed to pay costs of Rs. 1.50 lakh from salary to the assessee. Dept directed to make entry of lapse & error in the Annual Confidential Report of the AO. Strictures also passed against DCIT for overreaching authority & power by not allowing Dept's Counsel to argue. Such conduct of DCIT does not enhance the image and reputation of Dept
Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16357 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp authority cannot be adopted for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee if there is a long gap between the date of execution of the MOU and the execution of a formal development agreement
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16337 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
-
HC - Even where return was accepted u/s. 143(1), if the issue is legally concluded, there would be no point in allowing the AO to resort to full fledged reassessment.
Amarjeet Thapar Vs Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16329 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147 Reopening: If the assessee's son contends in his assessment that certain investments belong to the assessee, that gives "reason to believe" to the AO to reopen the assessment. The subjective satisfaction of the AO has to seen and whether that satisfaction suffers from any perversity (Maniben Valji Shah 283 ITR 354 (Bom) distinguished)
S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16321 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
HC - Stamp-duty cannot be the basis for valuation u/s. 50C for computing capital-gains on assignment of development rights but it should based on the amount actually received by assessee.
The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula Shah Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16292 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
-
S. 254(1): The ITAT should give independent reasons showing consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. An appellate order which affirms the order of the lower authority need not be a very detailed order. Nevertheless, there should be some indication in the order passed by the appellate authority of due application of mind to the contentions raised by the asseseee in the context of findings of the lower authority which were the subject matter of the challenge before it
Cheryl J. Patel vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16199 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
S. 147 Reopening of s. 143(1) intimation: The submission of the Dept that in view of Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC), the AO can reopen the assessment for "whatever reason" is preposterous. The AO cannot reopen on the basis of info received from DIT (Investigation) that a particular entity has entered into suspicious transactions without linking it to the assessee having indulged in activity which could give rise to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Such reopening amounts to a fishing inquiry. The AO has to apply his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.) and cannot act on on borrowed satisfaction
PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16080 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 143(1), 147
-
S. 2(47) Transfer for Capital Gains: The fact that an agreement for sale of property is registered does not make it a conveyance. The sale or transfer is not complete on the date of the execution of the agreement if there are obligations to be fulfilled by both parties
PCIT vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16073 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(47)
-
S. 220(6)/ 246: The AO is not justified in insisting on payment of 20% of the demand based on CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). This approach may defeat & frustrate the right of the assessee to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal. Such can never be the mandate of law
Bhupendra Murji Shah vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16010 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 220(6), 246
-
Transfer Pricing: The categorical finding of fact by the ITAT that a comparable (Motilal Oswal) is engaged in a qualitatively different and diversified business than that of the assessee cannot be challenged as a substantial question of law as the finding is not perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record
PCIT vs. NVP Venture Capital India Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15985 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(2): We are at a loss to understand why the ITAT has not communicated a date of hearing of the Miscellaneous Application (MA). The ITAT should give priority to the hearing of MAs. It should assign specific dates of hearing and inform parties well in advance. The ITAT should set right the lapses and put its house in order. None should be compelled to move the High Court and seek an out of turn hearing
Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15984 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
Art 226: If an assessee obtains an order from the Court that the Dept should refund the seized amount but does not take steps to enforce the order beyond the period of limitation, he is guilty of laches and negligence. He is not entitled to file another Writ for enforcement of the earlier order. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna vs. JDIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15983 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 197 TDS: No functionary other than the officer referred to in the relevant statutory provision, namely section 197 and Rule 28AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is permitted to take over the jurisdiction or interfere in the exercise of the discretionary power envisaged by this statutory provision. The concerned official has to record his satisfaction while issuing the TDS certificate
TLG India Private Limited vs. JCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15918 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 197
-
S. 147: The computation of income is the basic document for making the s. 143(3) assessment. If there is a disclosure in the computation, it leads to the prima facie necessary inference that there is application of mind by the AO. The fact that the AO did not raise specific queries & is silent in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind (Techspan 404 ITR 10(SC) followed, other contra judgements distinguished)
State Bank Of India vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15900 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 244: The Dept should bring some order and discipline to the aspect of granting refunds. All pending refund applications should be processed in the order in which they are received. It is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant refunds generated on account of orders of higher forums and disburse the amount expeditiously. In the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may impose interest on the quantum of refund at such rates determined by the Court
SICOM Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15884 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 244
-
S. 260A: Transfer Pricing disputes with regard to exclusion and inclusion of comparables to determine Arm's Length Price (ALP) would not necessarily give rise to substantial questions of law except if there is perversity of finding or failure to adhere to the settled principles of law while determining comparables
PCIT vs. TIBCO Software (India) Pvt Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15870 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 260A
-
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend: Law explained on whether only a proportionate addition of deemed dividend can be made taking into consideration the percentage of the shareholding in the borrowing company in cases where (a) there is only one shareholder that has a shareholding in the lending company as well as in the borrowing company & (b) two or more shareholders are shareholders of the same lending company and the same borrowing company
Sahir Sami Khatib vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15869 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
HC - Calls for a dedicated legal team in the Department for assisting the Court properly and fully. condemns Revenue officials for the unpleasant state of affairs.
Radan Multimedia Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax2
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15853 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
There is no discipline in the manner the Dept conducts matters. The Dept should not take legal matters casually and lightly. There should be a dedicated legal team in the department. Lack of preparation is affecting the performance of the advocates. They do not have full records & do not have the assistance of officials who can give instructions. The CsIT should devote more time to their work rather than attending some administrative meetings and thereafter boasting about revenue collection in Mumbai
PCIT vs. Radan Multimedia Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15841 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.