In Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in  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 …
CIT vs. Mafatlal Dyes and Chemicals Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »
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 …
CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »
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) …
Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »
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.
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.