-
An additional ground (relating to claim u/s 80-IA) cannot be permitted to be raised if the necessary evidence that the assessee is entitled to the claim is not on record. The fact that claim has been allowed by the AO in a subsequent year and that there is no reason why the claim should not be allowed in the present year is irrelevant. Also, the assessee must satisfy the appellate authority that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12679 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Bogus share capital/ premium: The proviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on the issuing Co to explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit
CIT. vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12575 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Additional Evidence: Ordinarily an application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rules 18 and 29 of ITAT Rules requires an order to be passed. If the ITAT rejects the application, reasons thereof have to be stated.
Rasiklal M. Parikh vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12565 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Strike by Advocates: Giving a call to protest when the Bill is still at a draft stage is premature. Wisdom has to prevail on the Advocates in the light of the law laid down in Harish Uppal AIR 2003 SC 739. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on the Advocates as well under Article 141 of the Constitution. The lawyers' community has to appreciate their responsibility in discharging the duties of their profession
Adv. Manoj Laxman Shirsat vs. Bar Council of India
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12514 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 271(1)(c): A disclosure of income, or withdrawal of claim for deduction, by the assessee after a specific s. 142(1)/ 143(2) notice is issued cannot be said to be a "voluntary disclosure" so as to avoid the levy of penalty. The argument that the earlier non-disclosure of income/ wrong claim for expenditure was due to "mistake" is not an acceptable defense (Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) followed, Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC) distinguished)
Samson Maritime Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12439 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 145: The average cost method of valuing inventories is an accepted method of valuation approved by the accounting standards issued by the ICAI. The AO is not entitled to disregard the method if the assessee has consistently followed the method
CIT vs. Uday M. Ghare
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12339 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 145
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot be levied. Argument of the Dept that Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not lay down this proposition is not correct
CIT vs. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12337 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
HC - Condition precedent under section 153C not satisfied where seized documents did not belong to assessee.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III, Mumbai v. Arpit Land (P.) Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12279 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68427&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amount paid by assessee to a professional interior designer to plan temporary access and exit from the Five Star Hotel is allowable u/s 37(1) as revenue expenditure.
Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Versus M/s. Seaprincess Hotels and Properties Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12269 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68526&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Authorities not to cancel the registration of the Charitable Institution only because the proviso to Section 2(15) comes into play as the receipts are in excess of the specified limits therein.
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Versus The North Indian Association
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12264 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68557&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No penalty u/s 271D for violating provision of section 269SS where amount received by the wife in cash from the husband by bonafide believing that the said amount need not have routed to her vide a bank transaction.
Smt. Nirmala w/o Surendra Jain Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12263 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68570&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates .. We are sorry to say that this is not what was expected from the Commissioner of Service Tax. If the officers are unaware of legal procedures, then, they have to be in touch with their Advocates and periodically. They cannot expect that the Advocate himself comes to their office and apprise them as to what further has to be done after the filing of an Appeal
CCE vs. Vansum Industries
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12186 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 143(2)/ 292BB: The issue of a notice u/s 143(2) bearing the wrong (old) address of the assessee does not amount to a valid service of the notice u/s 282 r.w.s. 27 of the General Clauses Act. The non-service of a notice u/s 143(2) before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed renders the assessment void. As the assessee objected to the same before completion of proceedings, the assessment order is not saved by s. 292BB
CIT vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12154 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 143(2), 292BB
-
S. 153C: The requirement that the documents found during search should “belong” to the assessee is a condition precedent and a jurisdictional issue. The non-satisfaction of the condition renders the entire proceedings null and void. The fact that the searched person and the assessee are alleged to be “hand in glove” is irrelevant
CIT vs. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12143 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 153C
-
S. 80-IB(10): The profits of an undertaking eligible for deduction cannot be treated as "inflated" in the absence of material on record to show that there is an arrangement between the eligible unit and the non-eligible unit to generate more than ordinary profits for the eligible unit. The mere fact that there are common customers of both the units does not by itself indicate transfer of profits to the eligible unit
Malay N. Sanghvi vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12100 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
S. 254(2): Plea that the appeal was mistakenly withdrawn on the advice of Counsel and that the same should be restored should be backed by evidence. If the assessee voluntarily withdraws the appeal, he cannot seek restoration on the ground that the withdrawal was an apparent mistake
Jayant D. Sanghavi vs. ITAT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12099 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
HC - When executives are employed and the infrastructure is ready to commence business, it can be said that the business has been set up.
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai Versus M/s. Axis Pvt. Equity Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12093 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68391&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68: Even if the premium at which the shares are issued defies commercial prudence, the receipt cannot be assessed as "unexplained credit" if the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the subscriber are not disputed. Interest earned on short-term fixed deposits is assessable as "profits and gains of business" and not as "income from other sources"
CIT vs. Green Infra Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12089 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
Bogus purchases: A statement by the alleged vendor that the transactions with the assessee are only accommodation entries and that there are no sales or purchases cannot be relied upon by the AO unless the assessee is given the opportunity to cross-examine the vendor
CIT vs. Ashish International
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12087 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice whether the penalty is being initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or for 'concealment of income' is fatal. It reflects non-application of mind and renders the levy of penalty invalid (Manjunatha Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) followed)
CIT vs. Samson Perinchery
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12079 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.