Home › › Page 29

Search Results For: Bombay High Court

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
In applying the ‘extrapolation’ principle of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC), the AO is entitled to make an estimation based on guesswork. However, the estimate must not be arbitrary and should be based on material

The ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HM Eusafali HM Abdulala (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) has been explained in the later judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. M.K.E. Memon 248 ITR 310 (Bom.) It is open for the Assessing Officer to make an estimation and in that process there could be a certain guess work as well. That element cannot be discarded totally

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(23C)(via): Institution consistently generating surplus, utilizing the surplus to buy assets, spending meager amount on treatment of poor patients is not existing “solely for philanthropic purpose” and “not for the purpose of profits”. Fact that exemption has been allowed in the past does not mean exemption has to be continued

The intention of the legislature in making provisions of section 10 (23C)(via) is that an institution shall exist solely for philanthropic purpose and not for the purpose of profits. The expression “solely for philanthropic purpose” and “not for the purpose of profits” spells out a clear intention of the legislature that the institution should not merely exist for philanthropic purpose but existence shall not be for profits. Satisfaction of this twin test by an institution claiming a deduction would entitle it for the benefit of the provisions of section 10 (23C)(via) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1980-81, 1981-82
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Expenditure allowable u/s 35D cannot be capitalized to asset for claim of depreciation

A plain reading of section 35D indicates that the Legislature has thought it appropriate to give a special benefit to the assessee in respect of expenditure specified in sub-section (2) incurred before commencement of business or after the commencement of business, in connection with the extension of industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up a new industrial unit. This provision allows amortisation of the specific category of expenditures incurred by the assessee, by way of deduction of an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of the ten successive previous years as provided therein. The legislature, therefore, having specifically provided for amortisation of the preliminary expenditure which includes expenditure incurred for issuance of shares by the assessee in connection with the issue of shares, the said expenditure on issue of shares is not eligible for depreciation.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Law laid down in Zoom Comm 327 ITR 510 (Del) does not apply if claim of assessee is bona fide and not in defiance of the law

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the assessee cannot be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 2, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Even if contract is awarded to the Joint Venture, the income is assessable only in the hands of the person which has executed the work

The ITAT has as a matter of fact found that the assessee/ joint venture did not execute the contract work and the said work was done by one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited. It is also found that the receipts for the said project work are reflected in the books of account of SMS Infrastructure Limited and in return, said SMS Infrastructure Limited has disclosed that income. The said return was accepted by the Assessing Officer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 18, 2010 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Chapter VI-A deductions are not limited to the business profits but are available to the extent of the Gross Total Income

The only question sought to be canvassed is that out of these deductions the admissible deduction under section 80-O ought to be limited to the extent of Rs.69,70,127 which represents business income. In other words, the income from interest and dividend shall not form part of the gross total income as defined under section 80B(5) of the Act. The submission is misconceived

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Even if gains have accrued on execution of the development agreement as per Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas, the subsequent modification/ supercession of the agreement means that gains are not taxable as per real income theory, (ii) expenditure on buy-back of shares of warring shareholders is business expenditure

In Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, the issue was to determine the year in which the property was transferred for the purpose of capital gains. In this case the issue is what is the consideration received for the transfer of an asset. No income is accrued or received of the value of 18000 sq.feet of constructed area under the development agreement because the said agreement was not acted upon as it came to be uperseded/modified by the Tripartite agreement. This was the position when the return of income was filed. On the application of the real income theory, there would be neither accrual nor receipt of income to warrant bringing to tax to the constructed area of 18,000 sq.ft which has not been received by the assessee (CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas 46 ITR 144 (SC) followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: S. 143(3) assessment order is not a scrap of paper & AO is expected to have applied his mind. Reopening on ground of "oversight, inadvertence or mistake" is not permissible

The argument that the AO has been careless in bringing to tax a particular amount which is chargeable to tax and that the Revenue should not be precluded from issuing notice u/s 148 overlooks the fact that power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order. At the time of passing assessment order, it expected of the AO that he will apply mind and pass an order. An assessment order is not a mere scrap of paper. To accept the submission of the department would mean to negate the well settled position in law as stated by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB) that the concept of ‘change of opinion’ brought in so as to have in built test to check abuse of power

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A: Entire law on condonation of delay explained

Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to bring about a situation of unsettling judicial decisions which stood accepted by the parties. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Dept is not entitled to challenge the ITAT's decision to determine the interest rate ALP of funds advanced to AE as per Euribor if the earlier ITAT judgements relied upon by ITAT have not been challenged by the Dept

The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in “VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT” (supra) and “DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd.”(supra) on the above issue. No reason has been shown to us as to why the Revenue seeks to take a different view in respect of the impugned order from that taken in “VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT” (supra) and “DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd.”(supra). The Revenue not having filed any appeal, has in fact accepted the decision of the Tribunal in “VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT” (supra) and “DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd.”(supra). In view of the above we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as in similar matters the Revenue has accepted the view of the Tribunal which has been relied upon by the impugned order

Read more ›