Search Results For: Aasifa Khan


Pr CIT vs. Bhagwan Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
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

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the reworking of the book profits by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee had directly credited the profit of Rs.2,84,84,000/ arising from sale of land to 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

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. IDBI Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
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

An alternative submission is made on behalf of the Revenue that the obligation to supply reasons on the Assessing Officer was consequent to the decision of the Apex Court that GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) rendered in 2003 while, in the present case, the reopening notice is dated 9 December 1996. Thus it submitted at the time when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the time when assessment was completed, there was no such requirement to furnish to the assessee a copy of the reasons recorded. This submission is not correct. We find that the impugned order relies upon the decision of this Court in Seista Steel Construction (P.) Ltd. [1984] 17 Taxman 122(Bom.) when it is held that in the absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the assessment order would be without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. The above view as taken by the Tribunal has also been taken by this Court in CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 Taxmann 53 (Bombay) viz. non-supply of reasons recorded to issue a reopening notice would make the order of Assessment passed thereon bad as being without jurisdiction

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
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

The loss was not on account of derivatives but are in fact losses and gains in foreign exchange relating to the purchase and sales transactions i.e. creditors and debtors outstanding as on 31st March, 2010. Therefore, Instruction No.3 of 2010 issued by the CBDT would have no application to the facts of the present case. In fact, the issue arising herein would be covered by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, as the impugned order of Tribunal followed by the decision of the Apex Court in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) which governs the issue, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to conclude that gains from sale of shares are not business income

There are various factors such as frequency, volume, entry in the books of accounts, nature of funds used, holding period etc. which are relevant in deciding the true nature of transactions and no single factor is conclusive. Thus, mere non-introduction of interest bearing funds will not alone determine the nature of the transactions. The impugned order, after analyzing the statement of capital gains which were available before it, came to the conclusion that most of the shares have been sold within 30 days of its purchase and upheld the order of the CIT(A)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 5, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
No s. 14A and Rule 8D disallowance can be made for shares held as stock-in-trade

One can at best disallow the expenses which are incurred for earning dividend income. For that purpose, the figures under the head “Investment” could be taken and some charges apportioned for the purpose of computing the expenses

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: S. 143(3) assessment order is not a scrap of paper & AO is expected to have applied his mind. Reopening on ground of "oversight, inadvertence or mistake" is not permissible

The argument that the AO has been careless in bringing to tax a particular amount which is chargeable to tax and that the Revenue should not be precluded from issuing notice u/s 148 overlooks the fact that power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing assessment order, it expected of the AO that he will apply mind and pass an order. An assessment order is not a mere scrap of paper. To accept the submission of the department would mean to negate the well settled position in law as stated by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB) that the concept of ‘change of opinion’ brought in so as to have in built test to check abuse of power

Posted in All Judgements, High Court
Top