-
S. 80-IA: There is a difference between "derived from the undertaking" and "derived from the business of the undertaking". The latter expression is wider than the former. Interest on fixed deposits from Bank and other interest are "derived from the business of the undertaking" and are eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA
Tema Exchangers Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15467 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 80-IA
-
S. 148/ 151: If the AO reopens the assessment by obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, there is a breach of section 151 which renders the reopening void
CIT. vs. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15442 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections. 148, 151
-
S. 260A: We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made earlier. Revenue should give proper explanation why assurance given earlier is not being followed. It is time responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped
PCIT. vs. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15434 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 260A
-
S. 147/148: If the recorded reasons do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs.1,00,000, and if the reopening is to "verify" suspicious transactions, prima-facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belief of the AO and the notice is without jurisdiction
Dulraj U. Jain vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15399 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 148
-
S. 158BC: The fact that the second proviso to s. 158BC(a) prohibits an assessee who is subjected to search from filing a revised return of income does not mean that the assessee is prohibited from raising an additional claim before the appellate authorities
Alok Textile Industries Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15398 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 158BC
-
Difference between "Res Judicata" and "Consistency Principle" explained. While "res judicate" does not apply to income-tax matters, the principles of consistency does. If the Revenue has accepted a practice and consistently applied and followed it, the Revenue is bound by it. The Revenue can change the practice only if there is a change in law or change in facts and not otherwise
PCIT. vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15319 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254: While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. CST
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15186 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254
-
S. 147: Law on reopening of assessments with four years and beyond four years explained with reference to all important case laws. Strictures passed against the AO for making comments which are highly objectionable and bordering on contempt and for being oblivious to law. As the very same ACIT had passed series of orders reopening assessments in ignorance of legal position, a compilation of judgments on reassessment proceedings should be furnished to the Commissioner to study the same. The position of law regarding the writ remedy is so settled, that it is understood even by the law students
Zuari Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15153 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 147
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Merely using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not sufficient. The same should be particularized by the AO with a finding as to what particulars of income has been concealed or what particulars of income are inaccurate. The words 'concealment' or giving 'inaccurate particulars of income' have to be read strictly before penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be invoked. Zoom Communication 371 ITR 570 (Del) distinguished
CIT. vs. L&T Finance Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15151 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
The fact that the parties to whom payments were made did not appear before the AO does not justify a disallowance if the assessee has discharged the initial onus and produced documentary proof. The assessee cannot compel the appearance of the parties before the AO. The onus is on the AO to carry out enquiries based on the PAN Nos to find out the genuineness of the parties
PCIT. Vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15019 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Court records sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the CIT has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed. His expression of regret for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department is gracious and a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. If such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary
Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14934 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 35AB: Question whether the term "acquiring know-how" means acquiring on ownership basis or on lease and whether deduction can be allowed u/s 37(1) for revenue expenditure explained. Judgements in Anil Starch Products 232 TM 129 and Diffusion Engineers 376 ITR 487 (Kar) (based on Swaraj Engines 301 ITR 284 (SC)) dissented from
Standard Batteries Ltd vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14870 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 35AB
-
The CBDT should reconsider the practice of appointing retired revenue officers as panel counsel. While the retired officials have domain expertise and do render assistance, they lack the skill and conduct required to appear as an Advocate. They also lack the objectivity expected from officers of the court. The CBDT could consider holding of a training programme, where leading Advocates could address the domain expert on the ethics, obligation and standard expected of Advocates before they start representing the State. The CBDT should lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue’s cause so that the Revenue’s Counsel are not left to fend for themselves
Pr. CIT. vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14848 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68 Bogus loans: The assessee is not required to explain the "source of source" prior to insertion of the proviso to s. 68. If the assessee has discharged the primary onus placed upon it u/s 68 by filing confirmation letters, the Affidavits, the full address and pan numbers of the creditors, the Revenue has to proceed against the persons whose source of funds are alleged to be not genuine
Pr. CIT. vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14801 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
Strictures passed against Dept's Advocate for "most unreasonable attitude" of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consideration. Dept's Advocate are expected to act with responsibility as an Officer of the Court and not merely argue for the sake of arguing when an issue is clearly covered by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the Court and take up scarce judicial time. Advocates must bear in mind that this is a Court of law and not an University/College debating Society, where debates are held for academic stimulation. We deal with real life disputes and decide them in accordance with the Rule of Law, of which an important limb is uniformity of application of law. This on the basis of judicial discipline and law of precedents
Pr CIT. Vs. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14769 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 40(3) Wealth-tax: Law on whether Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of "companies in which the public are not substantially interested" is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution explained (Imp constitutional law principles laid down)
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs. IAC
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14768 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 40(3)
-
Tax Recovery: CBDT should investigate arm twisting measures, dehors application of the law, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of tax and take corrective measures to ensure AOs are not overzealous in recovering maximum revenue before 31st March. Once the CIT(A) concludes hearing the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous. The exercise by CIT(A) of taking up the stay application, after the appeal was heard, was only done so as to collect some revenue before 31st March, 2018. This is certainly not expected of an Appellate Authority who adjudicates disputes between the Revenue and the Assessee on a regular basis. The CIT(A) must not only be fair but appear to be so, in a country governed by Rule of law.
The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14678 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(2): Tribunal orders (in sister concern's case) are binding on the Tribunal unless set-aside or stayed. A rectification application on the ground that the orders in the sister concern's case are not correct is not permissible as it amounts to a review
Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITAT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14559 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 254(2)
-
HC- Writ dismissed - Reassessment - Since it is observed that the objection raised by the petitioner is devoid of substance as there is very much reference to the objection in the communication indicating “reasons for belief”.
J.B.Amin & Brothers (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14491 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Certain Advocates have forgotten the code of eithcs. They facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, encouraging their clients' dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute. It has become a vicious and despicable cycle wherein dishonest litigants with malafide intentions seek out unethical Advocates, who for hefty fee and the lure of attracting similar new and unscrupulous clients, choose to disregard all ethics and the code of conduct enjoined upon this august profession
Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14482 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.