Search Results For: Bombay High Court


CIT vs. Montedison of Italy (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 8, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Income by way of fees for technical services payable by a person who is a resident, would be income deemed to accrue or arise in India

Section 9(1) of the Act provides which incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Sub-clause (vii)(b) of section 9(1) of the Act, as applicable to the facts of the present case, inter alia provides that income by

Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

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

CIT vs. Mafatlal Dyes and Chemicals Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 1, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Benefit of section 80V would be available to the Assessee if the borrowings were taken for the purpose of payment of tax

In Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [1999] 236 ITR 140, this Court observed that the benefit of section 80V would be available to the Assessee if the borrowings were taken for the purpose of

Suvarna Rahul Musale vs. Rahul Prabhakar Musale (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 9, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An Attitudal change in Judges is required. It is high time for us to change our mind set and see whether this new technology can help us to increase the speed and also we have to take into account the convenience of the parties

In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has reproduced valuable observations of Justice Bhagwati in the case of National Textile Workers’ Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan at page 256 as follows: “We cannot allow the dead hand of the past to

CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Creation of a reserve was sufficient to entitle the assessee to claim the benefit u/s 36(1)(viii) and the assessee was not obliged to maintain the said reserve

This court held in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution

The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3)

The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship". CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take "just and proper" decision before 30.09.2014


Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship“. CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take “just and proper” decision before 30.09.2014

In view of the fact that the Madras High Court has already directed the CBDT to examine the representation of the assessees in general, before 30.09.2014, we feel it appropriate that the above representation of the Petitioners is also considered by the CBDT. Though we do not wish to express any view of the legalities of various issues involved, it does appear to us, from the arguments advanced, that there will be substantial hardship caused to the assessees, if the date of filing Return is not suitably extended. We hope and trust that CBDT will look into all these practical difficulties enumerated above and take a just and proper decision on the matter, before 30.09.2014, as already directed by the Madras High Court. In case the Petitioners are entitled to any further relief in view of the orders passed in various petitions filed in other High Courts, this order would not preclude the Petitioners from claiming the same.

CIT vs. M/s Happy Home Enterprises (Bombay High Court)

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.

Coca-Cola India Private Limited vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99 to 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(1): Unnecessary remand by the ITAT causes prejudice and amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction


S. 254(1): Unnecessary remand by the ITAT causes prejudice and amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction

The Tribunal should not have refused to consider and decide the issue relating to service charges, more so, when an identical view taken by it earlier has not found favour of this Court. This Court repeatedly reminded the Tribunal of its duty as a last fact finding authority of dealing with all factual and legal issues. The Tribunal failed to take any note of the caution which has been administered by this Court and particularly of not remanding cases unnecessarily and without any proper direction. A blanket remand causes serious prejudice to parties. None benefits by non-adjudication or non-consideration of an issue of fact and law by an Appellate Authority and by wholesale remand of the case back to the original authority. This is a clear failure of duty which has to be performed by the Appellate Authority in law. Once the Appellate Authority fails to perform such duty and is corrected on one occasion by this Court, and in relation to the same assessee, then, the least that was expected from the Tribunal was to follow the order and direction of this Court and abide by it even for this later assessment year. If the same claim and which was dealt with by the Court earlier and for which the note of caution was issued, then, the Tribunal was bound in law to take due note of the same and follow the course for the later assessment years. We are of the view that the refusal of the Tribunal to follow the order of this Court and equally to correct its obvious and apparent mistake is vitiated as above. It is vitiated by a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has misdirected itself completely and in law in refusing to decide and consider the claim in relation to service charges.

Top