-
S. 147: It is a regular practice for the broker to make modifications in the client code after the purchase and sale of securities. The mere fact that there is a client code modification prima facie does not mean that any income has escaped assessment. it appears to be case of 'reason to suspect' and not 'reason to believe'
Coronation Agro Industries Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11586 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
HC - Writ Allowed - The Tribunal was bound to consider alternative plea raised by the assessee at the hearing.
Parmanand Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11530 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Writ dismissed - Chief Commissioner’s had rejected u/s 119(2) assessee’s application for waiver of interest u/s 234A/B/C for non-payment of advance tax on capital gains.
Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11519 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 234A/B/C
-
S. 10A/10B: After the change in scheme from “exemption” to “deduction” w.e.f. 01.04.2001, brought forward unabsorbed loss & depreciation of other 10B units and non-10B units are not liable for set off against the current year's profit of the 10B unit. The contrary law laid down in Himatasingike Seide 156 Taxman 151 (Kar), as approved by the Supreme Court, deals with the law pre 01.04.2001 when s. 10A/10B provided for an “exemption” and not a “deduction”
CIT vs. Techno Tarp and Polymers Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11432 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 10A, 10B
-
HC - No disallowance of expenditure on advertisement on television as corporate advertisement expenditure facilitates the business having a direct impact on sales and profitability of the Assessee.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Versus M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11423 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66658&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Allowed - AO to grant refund due to assessee, despite issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2).
M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11405 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 143(ID)
-
HC - Writ Allowed - AO was unable to process the return not because of his “volition” but due to the failure of technology employed by the IT Department. CCIT to ensure that the computer system runs in accordance with the Act or come up with an alternative so that the return can be processed by the AO u/s 143(1).
Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11377 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 143(1)
-
HC - Mere description as a “supplier” in a suit by the assessee against the insurance company claiming an insurance claim for loss of equipment, when the assessee insured the equipment jointly with the purchaser, can possibly have no connection with the escapement of any income arising out of sale of the equipment.
DIT (IT) vs. Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11374 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Where initially assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and subsequently challenged the transfer orders u/s 127, the same cannot be accepted.
Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income tax & Others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11366 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66594&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 143(1D): AO cannot rely on Instruction No.1/2015 dated 13.01.2015 to withhold refunds as the same has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in Tata Teleservices & the same is binding on all AOs across the Country. Action of the AO in not giving reasons for not processing the refund application is “most disturbing” and stating that he will wait till the last date is “preposterous”. Action of the AO suggests that it is not enough that the deity (Act) is pleased but the priest (AO) must also be pleased
Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11341 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 143(1D)
-
S. 158BC: Action of the Revenue in issuing s. 158BC notice despite the appraisal report clearly stating that no incriminating material was found is highly deplorable as it amounts to harassment of the taxpayer. The Officers cannot act on their whim and fancy. The Dept should adopt a SOP to provide adequate safeguards before issuing notices under Ch. XVIB. Chief CIT directed to pay costs to the assessee
Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11309 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 158BC
-
HC - Jobbing activity done to guard against business loss could not be considered as a speculative transaction as per sec. 43(5) proviso (c).
The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri. Rajan C. Sheth
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11302 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66522&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147: Non-supply by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment (even where the reopening is prior to GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC)) renders the reassessment order bad as being without jurisdiction
CIT vs. IDBI Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11282 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 37(1)/43(5): Loss suffered in foreign exchange transactions entered into for hedging business transactions cannot be disallowed as being “notional” or “speculative” in nature. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds is not good law as it lost sight of Badridas Gauridas 261 ITR 256 (Bom)
CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 37(1), 43(5)
-
HC - Before AY 1988-89, capital contribution in the form of immovable properties, stocks and shares by a company to a partnership-firm was not taxable u/s 45.
Jamnalal Sons Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11263 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - No notice u/s 158BC could be issued in absence of justification to issue the impugned notice. Revenue directed to pay cost of ₹ 20,000 to the assessee.
Dr. Gautam Sen Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax And Others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11233 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66443&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Filing of multiple petitions by Revenue, against same order is a wastage of public money.
CIT. vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11183 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Change in method of valuation of stock from “lowest price during the year” to the “weighted average cost” formula being bona fide and a permanent arrangement to be followed, the Revenue has no cause to complain.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Bombay Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Bombay
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11164 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66363&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC -Where the issue is debatable then mere making of the claim on basis of a particular interpretation would not lead to an imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
DIT. vs. Koninklijke DSM NV
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11151 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Revenue cannot reject the revised method of accounting except in cases covered by proviso to Sec.145(1) or Sec. 145(2). change in the method of ascertaining cost for the purpose of stock valuation from “lowest price during the year” to “weighted average cost” justified.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11142 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.