Search Results For: Bombay High Court


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 150(1): A "finding" is one that is necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an assessment of a particular year

The issue for our examination is whether there is any finding in the order of the Tribunal which is being given effect to and/or as consequence thereof, the impugned notice has been issued. It is only when the answer to …

Eskay K’n’ IT (India) Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 7, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254: ITAT cannot decline to admit additional ground of appeal on the ground that it would in any case be answered against the appellant on merits

In the light of authoritative pronouncement in National Thermal Power Limited Company V/s. CIT 229 ITR 383 and which was binding on the Tribunal, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we do not see how the …

Jehangir H C Jehangir vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 & 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80IB(10): Super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area

The concept of “super built-up” area is used by builders to get higher price and the super built-up area includes common area of stair-case and balcony area. Since super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area it cannot be …

CIT vs. Hermes Developers (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1994-95
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 244A: Refund of self-assessment tax is entitled to interest

(i) The contention of revenue is that no interest at all is payable to the petitioner under Section 244A(1)(a) and (b) of the Act unless the amounts have been paid as tax. It would not cover cases where the payment …

The Stock Holding Corporation of India vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 255(3): Action of ITAT President in forming Special Bench lacking in propriety

During the pendency of the assessee’s appeal before the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the CBDT addressed a letter to the President of the Tribunal and sought the constitution of a Special Bench u/s 255(3) for hearing the appeal. The …

Jagati Publications Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Before proceeding to the Explanation below s. 271 and putting the responsibility on the assessee, it is necessary for the AO to first demonstrate that the assessee's explanation or conduct is not reasonable on human probabilities, or that it was in the nature of violating settled legal positions. If the explanation is not fanciful, baseless or unacceptable, penalty cannot be levied

A legal contention raised bonafide by the assessee claiming the amounts to be capital receipt, only because the same was not accepted, by itself cannot be said to be act of fraud or gross or wilful negligence. Merely because the …

CIT vs. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The person who constructs a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by the Government is not the "owner" of the road and cannot claim depreciation thereon

The High Court had to consider whether a person who is in the business of infrastructure development constructs a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by the Government, can it claim depreciation on the toll …

North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) & 43B: Even employees' contribution to PF etc is allowable if deposited before due date of filing ROI

Section 43B made it mandatory for the department to grant deduction in computing the income under section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc. is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that the accounting …

CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Advertisement expenditure incurred by agent to popularize the business of the channel run by the foreign principal is allowable as there is a direct business between the expenditure and the assessee's business as agent. The fact that the foreign principals also benefited does not entail right to deny deduction under section 37(1)

The main grounds on which the revenue has questioned the order of the tribunal are (a) non disclosure in form 3CEB of the fact that the principal is also a beneficiary of the advertising expenses; (b) that the advertising and …

CIT vs. N.G.C. Network (India) P. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »