Search Results For: A. V. Nirgude J


CIT vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 22, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interest on NPAs and Stick Loans, even if accrued as per the mercantile system of accounting, is not taxable as per prudential norms

The assessee herein being a Cooperative Bank also governed by the Reserve Bank of India and thus the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India are equally applicable to the Cooperative banks. The provisions of Section 45Q of Reserve Bank of India Act has an overriding effect vis-à-vis income recognition principle under the Companies Act. Hence, Section 45Q of the RBI Act shall have overriding effect over the income recognition principle followed by cooperative banks. Hence, the Assessing Officer has to follow the Reserve Bank of India directions 1998. In UCO Bank the Supreme Court considered the nature of CBDT circular and held that the Board has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circular in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act, it is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied

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

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

Top