-
HC - Documentary evidences adequate to prove share application money genuineness even in case of no response/appearance by shareholders before Revenue against summons issued.
Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13386 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
HC - Benefit of deduction u/s.57(iii) - The only requirement is that the expenditure is with the object of earning income and not dependent upon actual earning of income in fact.
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Nagpur Versus Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13382 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69707&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee’s reliance on SC ruling appears to be a lame excuse in order to avoid the tax liability and depriving the Revenue its due share in the taxable income. Confirms penalty levy u/s. 273(2)(a).
Trustee of Saurashtra Trust vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13356 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Transfer Pricing: A party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables a company found to have been included on account of mistake of fact. The Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and uncontrolled transactions by carrying out of FAR analysis. The assessee's submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are in fact comparable
CIT. vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13334 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Interest on interim compensation received pending final disposal by the High Court is income if there is no direction given by the Court. The source of funds to earn income cannot determine the taxability of the income. The fact that the assessee may have to return the compensation and interest on the principle of restitution as provided under S. 144 of the Civil Procedure Code is not relevant because restitution is not a certainty. Paragon Construction 274 ITR 413 (Del) distinguished
Premlata Purshottam Paldiwal vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13333 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
CIT. vs. Diamond Dye Chem Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13270 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 145A
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
Indermal Manaji vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13253 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 115JB: The AO is not entitled to add to the "book profits" the amounts arising from sale of land which are directly credited to the Capital Reserve Account in the balance sheet rather than routing it through Profit and Loss Account in the manner provided as per Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956
Pr CIT. vs. Bhagwan Industries Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13252 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 115JB
-
S. 12AA(3): The CIT is not entitled to withdraw s. 12A registration on the ground that the activities of the trust are no longer charitable after the insertion of the proviso to s. 2(15). The registration can be withdrawn only if a finding is given that the activities of the institution are not genuine or that the activities carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution
CIT. vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13238 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 12AA(3)
-
S. 147: If the AO does not follow the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19, the reopening proceedings have to be quashed. There is no reason to restore the issue to the AO to pass a further/fresh order because it would give a licence to the AO to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the assessee by reviving stale/ old matters
KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13214 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Mere fact that parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share capital money were not traceable and did not appear before the AO in response to summons does not mean that the transaction can be treated as bogus if the documentation shows the genuineness of the transaction
CIT. vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13170 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
S. 158BFA(1): If the delay in filing the return is completely attributable to the revenue for non-furnishing of copies of the documents and not giving inspection of the documents seized within a reasonable time after making the demand, the interest has to waived. Though s. 158BFA(1) does not (pre 2002) confer the power to waive interest, it has to be read in on equitable construction because the subject cannot be made to pay for the negligence of the Officers of the State (J. H. Gotla 4 SCC 343 followed)
Mahavir Manakchand Bhansali vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13133 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 158BFA(1)
-
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act
CIT. vs. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13132 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 221
-
Transfer Pricing ALP of foreign advances: If the advances are made to a AE situated abroad, the LIBOR rate has to considered to determine the Arms Length interest and not the interest rate in India (SBI PLR). This would be reasonable and proper in applying commercial principles
CIT. vs. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13103 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 69C/ 153C: An admission of the assessee which is retracted cannot be the basis of addition. The allegations made by the authorities have to be supported by actual cash passing hands. The addition cannot be sustained in the absence of material which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another and if the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages and if none of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands
CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13095 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 69C, 153C
-
Capital Gains: While a family arrangement/settlement does not amount to a "transfer" u/s 2(47) as it only recognizes "pre-existing rights" between the parties, the same applies only to members of the families and not to transfers made by corporate entities. The corporate veil can never be lifted at the instance of the company itself because that would amount to its denying its own corporate existence. The fact that the Company is wholly owned by the members of the family is irrelevant
B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13054 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(47)
-
S. 92C +/- 5%: The contention that there is an error because mere mathematical calculation shows that the arm's length purchase price as worked out by the TPO falls beyond (+)/(-) 5% range and consequently falls outside the scope of the second proviso to s. 92C(2) cannot be considered if it was not raised before the CIT(A) & ITAT
CIT. vs. Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13053 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 92C
-
Valid service of notice: Law explained on whether sending a notice by RPAD and its return by the postal authorities with the remark "addressee refused to accept" amounts to a valid service or not
CST vs. Sunil Haribhau Pote
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12820 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 on payment by assessee to foreign JV partner towards reimbursement of salary for seconded employees as the same is not FTS under India-UK DTAA.
DIT (International Taxation) vs. Marks & Spencer Reliance India Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12798 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Service of notice by Whatsapp: The purpose of service is put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is irrelevant. The rules and procedure are not so ancient or rigid that only antiquated methods of service through a bailiff or by beat of drum is acceptable. E-Mail & Whatsapp are not formally approved but if service is shown to be effected and is acknowledged it cannot be said that the Defendants had ‘no notice’. Defendants who avoid and evade service by regular modes cannot be permitted to take advantage of that evasion
Kross Television India Pvt Ltd vs. Vikhyat Chitra Production
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12737 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.