-
HC - An asset cannot move out of the `Block of Assets', if depreciation was allowed to the asset sometime in the past, even though depreciation was claimed for many years thereafter.
Meena v. Pamnani Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13717 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 50
-
HC - Even in a case where there is evidence to prove that an industrial gala which was once used for business is not used for business for many years, the gain on sale thereof will attract the provisions of section 50 and will consequently be short term capital gain.
Smt. Meena V. Pamnani, Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City-IX, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13692 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70099&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - As per CA firm's affidavit which stated that it had advised assessee not to file an appeal with ITAT, enormous appeal filing delay of 8 years is condoned.
Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13686 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Strictures by ITAT against ICAI deprecated: It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay blamed the assessee's Chartered Accountant and the ICAI on how they should conduct themselves. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself by taking irrelevant factors into account. Delay of 2984 days in filing the appeal caused by wrong advice of a professional is capable of condonation. However, even if the assessee has acted bona fide, he can be held liable for payment of costs to balance rights and equities
Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 13670 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Department of Income Tax is not a special litigant. The law of limitation does not exempt it. Revenue officials are grossly negligent and there is no sufficient cause for condoning this enormous delay.
Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13664 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70056&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the disallowance should be computed as per the prescribed formula
Pr CIT. vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13658 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 14A
-
High Court states that it is “most unhappy” with the manner in which the Tribunal has decided the appeal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO without any discussion as to why the order of the CIT(A) is perverse or is contrary to law. It also did not pint out infirmities or errors of fact and law in the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal failed to perform its duty of rendering a complete decision. It is obliged in law to examine the matter and reappraise and reappreciate all the factual materials
Thyrocare Technologies Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13640 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - AO cannot generally say in respect of prior permission request u/s Sec. 281(1) that no proposed transaction or charge over any asset, though unencumbered, can be permitted because there is a possibility of another demand, or on account of the vagaries of litigation, etc.
Vedanta Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13623 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 281
-
S. 69C "On Money": If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the 'on money' received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the 'on money' which can be considered for the purpose of taxation. Once the 'on money' is considered as a revenue receipt, then any expenditure out of such money cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure, for that would amount to double addition in respect of the same amount
CIT. vs. M/s Golani Brothers
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13621 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 69C
-
40(a)(ia)/40(ba) Disallowance of reimbursement of salary for non-deduction of TDS: Displeasure and unhappiness expressed at the manner in which the Tribunal approached the matter insofar as the applicability of s. 40(ba) is concerned. Tribunal cautioned that it should not use abbreviations in the order without indicating what the terms stand for as it causes confusion
CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13594 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 40(a)(ia), 40(ba)
-
S. 153A: Argument of the Dept that the law laid down in Continental Warehousing/ All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the search and no other issue can be taken is per incuriam in view of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC) is not correct. Bhola Shankar Cold Storage 270 ITR 487 (Cal) distinguished
CIT. vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13542 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 153A
-
Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a 'patently false' affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its' Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated
CIT vs. Parle Bisleri Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13522 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Mining for the purpose of production of mineral ore falls within the ambit of the word ‘production’, entitling the assessee to the benefit of Section 32(A).
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus Sesa Goa Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13492 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69836&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - If a practice is followed (arbitrage transactions) and the same does not violate any law then the impugned loss amounts to hedging loss and constitutes business loss.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - IV Versus M/s. Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13491 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69838&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68: Argument that the assessee did not maintain "books of account" and so s. 68 will not apply is not acceptable. It is incumbent on every assessee doing business to maintain proper books of account. It may be in any form. If the assessee has not done so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Burden lies on the assessee to show from where he has received the amount and what is its nature
Arunkumar J. Muchhala vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13470 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
HC - When Appellant is doing business, then it was incumbent on him to maintain proper books and/ or books of account. It may be in any form. Therefore, if he had not maintained it, then he can not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Addition u/s 68 in respect of gifts from NRI friend confirmed.
Shri. Arunkumar J. Muchhala Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13443 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69788&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Dismissed - No second writ petition praying for same reliefs as in the earlier writ petition which was withdrawn by assessee.
Kamal Galani vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13427 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Explanation to Sec. 37(1) was not attracted to assessee’s payment for commission to Jordan based company as the same is not illicit under Volcker-report.
Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Central IV
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13424 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 37
-
HC - Writ allowed - It can happen that an income which was not earlier offered to tax is now withdrawn and, as a result, income is offered to tax before the ITSC. This will satisfy the requirement of Section 245C (1).
Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13409 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 245C
-
HC - Requirement to furnish the Tax Residency Certificate was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from April 1, 2013 which has no application to AY 2005-06. Reassessment on UAE-resident Quashed.
Prashant M. Timblo vs. CCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13387 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.