Home ›

Search Results For: J. D. Mistry

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C Prosecution: If the Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the DCIT to threaten the assessee with prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of the Appeal

Once we have admitted the Appeal on substantial questions of law, we do not think that there is any justification for the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle8( 1) to threaten the appellant/applicant with any prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of this Appeal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said to be for the use of an asset

(i) It is thus clear that in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be …

ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The key word in Explanation is “work”. There could be a scenario where in the given set of facts and circumstances it could be validly contended that a hotel was a place of the work of the employees of the Assessee Company

Whether expenses incurred in a hotel would fall within “or other place of their work” appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 37(2A) of the Act, would entirely depend on the facts of each case. There cannot be any generalization in …

Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 20, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10)(d): Limit on extent of commercial area of housing project inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to projects approved before that date


S. 80-IB(10)(d): Limit on extent of commercial area of housing project inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to projects approved before that date

(i) Clause (d) of s. 80-IB(10) is a condition that relates to and/or is linked with the approval and construction of the housing project and the Legislature did not intend to give any retrospectivity to it. At the time when the housing project is approved by the local authority, it decides, subject to its own rules and regulations, what quantum of commercial area is to be included in the said project. It is on this basis that building plans are approved by the local authority and construction is commenced and completed. It is very difficult, if not impossible to change the building plans and / or alter construction midway, in order to comply with clause (d) of s. 80-IB(10). It would be highly unfair to require an assessee to comply with s. 80-IB(10)(d) who has got his housing project approved by the local authority, before 31.03.2005 and has either completed the same before the said date or even shortly thereafter, merely because the assessee has offered its profits to tax in AY 2005-2006 or thereafter. It would be requiring the assessee to virtually do a humanly impossible task. This could never have been the intention of the Legislature and it would run counter to the very object for which these provisions were introduced, namely to tackle the shortage of housing in the country and encourage investment therein by private players. It is therefore clear that clause (d) of s. 80-IB (10) cannot have any application to housing projects that are approved before 31.03.2005.

Read more ›