-
HC - Share issue expenses at the instance of Government-directive is not revenue in nature. not allowable u/s 37(1).
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11127 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 37(1)
-
HC - Sec 54F claim restricted for non-deposit of un-utilized consideration in capital gains account scheme in terms of Sec 54F(4).
Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. Chief CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11106 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 54F
-
HC - Reimbursement of retrenchment compensation by company to its subsidiary in respect of employees of transferred units for discharging contractual obligation is revenue in nature.
Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The C.I.T.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11104 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - The payment of gratuity was made by the assessee, not on its own but at the instance and on behalf of the employees, whose services, though terminated in the assessee company, were taken over by the transferee company. Allowable.
The Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax Central CircleI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11061 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66229&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 54F(4): Failure to deposit the amount of consideration not utilized towards the purchase of new flat in the specified bank account before the due date of filing return of Income u/s 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption. The fact that the entire amount has been paid to the developer/builder before the last date to file the ROI is irrelevant. Contrary view in K. Ramchandra Rao 277 CTR 0522 (Kar) is sub-silentio and is not good law
Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11048 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54F(4)
-
Order of the Tribunal in refusing to follow judgement of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case (holding that transfer fees and TDR premium received by a cooperative society is not taxable on principles of mutuality) without giving reasons is not justified and is breach of principles of judicial discipline
Hatkesh Co.op. Housing Society Ltd vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11003 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Since entire amount which was subject to capital gain tax had not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor were the unutilized amounts deposited in the notified Bank Accounts, No exemption u/s 54F(4).
Humayun Suleman Merchant Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City, XVII, Mumbai and Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10982 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Condonation of delay: An appeal wrongly filed before the AO and not CIT(A) is an unintentional lapse of the assessee. The AO ought to have returned the appeal to enable the assessee to take corrective steps. The likelihood of error is inherent in human nature The power of condonation is in view of human fallibility and must be exercised in cases of bona fide lapses
Prashanth Projects Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10958 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 256(1): Failure to serve reference as provided by Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court Rules upon the Respondent means that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the reference and the same has to be returned unanswered
Naath Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10956 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 256(1)
-
S. 145A(a)(ii) applies only to goods and not services. Service-tax billed on rendering of services is not includible as trading receipts. No disallowance u/s 43B can be made for the unpaid service-tax liability which is not claimed as a deduction
CIT vs. Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10955 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 145A(a)(ii)
-
S. 37(1): Foreign exchange loss is not a "notional" or "speculation" loss and is allowable as a deduction. CBDT's Instruction No. 3 of 2010 which deals with foreign exchange derivative transactions (forward contracts) is not applicable to cases of losses in dealings with foreign exchange
CIT vs. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10893 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
Action of assessee of filing Writ Petition to seek early hearing of appeal before CIT(A) while simultaneously seeking adjournment before the CIT(A) on frivolous grounds is a "delaying tactic" and an "abuse of the legal process". Petition dismissed and assessee directed to pay costs to the department
Tulsidas Trading Pvt. Ltd vs. TRO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10802 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Writ Petition: A Writ Petition filed little after four months of receipt of impugned order suffers from “delay”. If the Writ Petition does not explain the reasons for the “delay”, it is liable to be dismissed
Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd vs. ITAT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10778 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147: S. 148 reopening notice issued to a private trust which received contributions of Rs. 6.58 crore on the ground that it has not obtained a PAN or filed a return of income is not valid. The AO cannot assume all receipts are income and issue the reopening notice
General Electoral Trust vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10777 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 148
-
HC - Expenditure towards structural repairs incurred by the tenant pursuant to tenancy agreement is capital in nature and not allowable u/s 30.
RPG Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10747 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Liability to pay the excess amount to the Government arose as soon as the sale of drugs took place and thus, such liability was a determined and statutory.
CIT. vs. Hoechst India Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10688 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Possession date and not agreement date is relevant for determining land’s “effective” holding period.
Bindiya H. Malkani and Others vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10660 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(2): In an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal cannot deal with the merits of the issue. The Tribunal must recall the original appellate order and refix the matter for hearing and pass an order u/s 254(1) of the Act
Safari Mercantile Private Limited vs. ITAT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10634 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 2(42A)/ 45: An agreement to purchase property merely creates a right to seek specific performance. The asset cannot be considered to be "held" from the date of the agreement so as to constitute long-term capital gains
Bindiya H. Malkani vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10633 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 2(42A), 45
-
Law laid down by the Tribunal in (i) Central Bank of India v/s. DCIT 42 SOT 450 that under Art 26(3) of India-USA DTAA payments to Non-Residents are equated with payments to Residents & so s. 40(a)(i) disallowance is not valid and (ii) in DCIT v/s. Bank of Baharain & Kuwait 132 TTJ (Mum) 505 that loss arising from unmatured foreign exchange contracts is not a notional loss but is allowable as a definite liability is final as Dept has not challenged these verdicts and the issue cannot be raised in case of other assessees
DIT vs. Citibank N. A.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10605 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(i)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.