-
S. 28/29: There is a distiction between "setting up of business" and "commencement of business". All expenditure after "setting up" is deductible business expenditure even if the business has not commenced. A business is "set up" when steps are taken to recruit employees and take premises etc
CIT vs. Axis Pvt. Equity Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12078 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28, 29
-
S. 254(1)/ Rule 34(5)(c): The Tribunal is mandated to pass orders within 90 days of the hearing. Delay is not justified on the ground that 'administrative clearance' was obtained. The aggrieved party is entitled to seek recall of such an order
Otters Club vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12004 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
S. 254(2): Facts recorded by the ITAT have to be accepted as correct and conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavit or otherwise. The mere placing of a case law in the paper book does not mean that it was cited before the ITAT and non-consideration thereof is not a mistake apparent from the record. A MA to rectify such alleged mistake of non-consideration of a judgement must be filed as quickly as possible
Ashish Gandhi Builders & Developers P. Ltd vs. ITAT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11975 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 54EC: Investment in specified bonds from the amounts received as an advance is eligible for s. 54EC deduction. The fact that the investment is made prior to the transfer of the asset is irrelevant
CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11871 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54EC
-
HC - Processes adopted by the Respondent Assessee to obtain front guard, luggage, carrier, rear gear etc. were manufacturing processes. Eligible for deduction u/s 80IC.
Commissioner of Income Tax 20, Mumbai Versus M/s. Kumar Auto Sales
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11862 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68198&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 40(a)(ii): Foreign taxes are not hit by the bar in s. 40(a)(ii) and are deductible on the real income theory. After the insertion of the Explanation to s. 40(a)(ii) by the FA 2006, foreign taxes are not deductible only to the extent they are eligible for relief u/s 90 & 91. Amounts not eligible for DIT relief are deductible. The Explanation is declaratory and has retrospective effect
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11713 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ii)
-
HC - Since assessee earned huge profits and it had operations internationally and it was one of India's Top 500 companies, couldn't file condonation plea of manpower shortage.
Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11708 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66057&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since clients of assessee did not pay service tax, assessee paid service tax out of its own resources, the same to be allowed under section 37(1) as wholly incurred for purposes of business.
Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Mumbai v. Prime Broking Co. (I) Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11698 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66678&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Where AO was satisfied with income attributable under article 9 of India-Denmark DTAA in respect of 141 ships out of 145 ships, then revenue could not bring income of remaining 4 ships to tax in India under section 9.
Director of Income-tax (IT)-I, Mumbai v. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11690 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10900&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - In respect of proceedings for recovery u/s 179, before the issue of interpretation of the word 'Tax due' can be decided, the factual aspect of the amount due on account of tax and interest from the defaulting company has to be ascertained.
Nandkishor Kagliwal, Director M/s. Jeevan Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2) (1) & Others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11686 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=67987&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Transfer Pricing adjustment has to be done only in respect of International Transactions with Associated Enterprises. The fact that the assessee has chosen entity level PLI to benchmark the AE transactions and that it has not maintained segmental accounts is irrelevant. If segmental accounts are not available, proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises
CIT vs. ALSTOM Projects India Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11658 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - In view of para 4(A) of Office Memorandum (‘O.M’) dated Feb 29, 2016, AO is obliged to grant stay on payment of 15% of disputed amount where outstanding demand is disputed before the CIT(A).
Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal CIT and Others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11650 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Validity of reopening of assessment cannot be challenged merely in the absence of the words “failure to disclose fully and truly all material particulars” in to the recording of the reasons. Analysis of data (material) would alone determine whether, prima facie, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
M/s. Paramount Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11648 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=67950&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of‘ bonafide’ claim of deferred revenue expenditure made by assessee but disallowed by AO.
Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11617 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Writ Allowed - Income may have accrued during another year was not a finding required for disposal of the appeal therefore, it falls beyond the scope of Section 150 read with the Explanation (2) to Section 153 (3). Reassessment invalid.
Kala Niketan & Anr. vs. UOI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11614 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 153
-
HC - Once the petitioner gives up the constitutional and the larger challenge and are agreeable that their refund application if processed in accordance with law and expeditiously they would be satisfied and would not press the petition thereafter, refund processing pending scrutiny notice allowed.
Aegis Ltd. Vs. The Union of India
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11613 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 143(1D)
-
HC - Writ Dismissed - In part IX of the Companies Act, therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of the proviso of Section 47(xiii) by premature transfer of shares, the said Company is not liable to pay capital gains tax.
CIT. Vs. Umicore Finance
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11603 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Amount appropriated towards the Sinking Funds was a part of the rent received by the assessee and was in the nature of a revenue receipt. The mere use of the term 'sinking fund' and the manner in which the assessee treats the same in its accounts is not decisive of the matter.
M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11601 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66918&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - In case of conversion of the partnership firm into a Private Limited Company, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of the proviso of Section 47(xiii) by premature transfer of shares, the said Company is not liable to pay capital gains tax.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa Versus M/s Umicore Finance Luxemborg, C/o M/s Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11595 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66899&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S 50C does not apply to transfer of land and building, being leasehold property
CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11587 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.