Month: April 2018

Archive for April, 2018


Anand Agarwal v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar(Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Advocate Act , 1961
S.7:Code of ethics – Dishonest practice – For misrepresentations before the Court, which should under any and all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and mala-fide behaviour- Exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh was to be paid to plaintiffs [ Contempt Courts Act , 1971 ]

Ram Nagar Trust No. 1 v. Mehtab L. Sheikh (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Adjournment –Delay in filing affidavit of reply – Cost of Rs.4 , 50,000 / was levied .

Abicor and Binzel Tecnoweld Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI( Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Central Goods and Service Tax Act , 2017
GST Network: The regime is not tax friendly.

CST v. Shri. Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises(2019) 173 DTR 129 (Bom)HC) , www.itatonline.org/GST v.Green Valley Developers ( 2019) 173 DTR 129 (Bom)HC) , www.itatonline.org GST v.Kumar Beheary Rathi ( 2019) 173 DTR 129 (Bom)HC) , www.itatonline.org

Service tax – Finance Act, 1994
S.65:Service-tax on maintenance of property-Under the MOFA, the builder/ developer is under a statutory obligation to look after the day-to-day upkeep, maintenance and repair of the property till conveyance to the co-op society. Such maintenance of the structure is not rendering a taxable service as per S. 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994

CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh. (2018) 402 ITR 238/ 303 CTR 294/ 167 DTR 179 (All) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Beneficial Provision — Retrospective application.

CIT v. Swapna Enterprise (2018) 401 ITR 488 / 253 Taxman 531 /166 DTR 51/ 302 CTR 504 (Guj) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Similarity in language used in provisions.

CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Presumption of prospectivity of statute- Machinery provisions .

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT( 2018) 404 ITR 564/166 DTR 379 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Interpretation – Binding precedent -. Interpretations given by High Courts and Tribunals cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officers

Indian Express Newspapers(Bom) (P) Ltd. v. IAC ( 2018) 164 DTR 233/ 302 CTR 33 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Wealth –tax Act, 1957 –Finance Act 1983
S. 40(3) :Levy of wealth tax on land and building which is not used for the purpose of business was held to be valid – Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of “companies in which the public are not substantially interested” is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . [ Art 14 ]

DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S. 7:Net Wealth — Vehicle funded by and maintained on behalf of Principal foreign company was held to be not included in net Wealth of Assessee -Principle of consistency was followed .[S.2(m) ]