Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Maharashtra State Warehousing vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

Maharashtra State Warehousing vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (maharashtra_state_warehousing_COD_approval.pdf)

Even State Govt. Undertakings need COD clearance

In the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in ONGC vs. CIDCO (2007) 7 SCC 39 and that of the Madras High Court in Tamilnadu Warehousing Corp Ltd vs. DCIT (2008) 15 DTR 67, even appeals involving State Government undertakings require approval of the Committee on Disputes. The appeal can be proceeded with only if the appellant is either able to obtain the requisite COD clearance or file satisfactory evidence to prove that a COD to deal with State – Centre disputes has not been formed.

Note: The judgement of the Special Bench in DCIT vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 100 ITD 187 is no longer good law in view of the judgements referred to above.

Related Posts:

  • K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Two propositions of law emerge from the above observations. Firstly, once the promise is solemnly given by the State with an intention that when acted upon, it would create a legal relation and acting on it the promisee has changed his/her position and incurred liability, the State must be held…
  • Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the complaint was filed for delay in remitting the tax deducted. The applicant has taken stand that he was non- executive Director of the company and they are also practising advocates and, therefore, they are prohibited under the…
  • Rajkumar B. Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) The entire position which thus emerges is that PIL is a penny stock company, which fact got established from enquiries conducted by BSE and SEBI. Not only the DSP shares and Securities Ltd. and Galaxy Broking Ltd. were fined for manipulating the prices of shares of PIL, even the broker…
  • Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) In our considered opinion, where the payments are made to the entities/persons other than the persons specified in sub-section (3), the limitation period of one year from the end of financial year in which the proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated, as laid down by the Special Bench of Tribunal and…
  • Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.…
  • Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) Taking a cue from Varghese case, we therefore, hold that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked where it is found on facts that the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee. The burden…

Related Judgements

  1. Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    (i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there … Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special…
  2. Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    (i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a “business connection” because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income … Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)…
  3. R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss…
  4. ACIT vs. Epcos AG (ITAT Pune) 

    On facts, the assessee had rendered support services to its subsidiaries and some employees of the latter had worked under the guidance of the assessee, but the work so done by the employees was for the business of the Indian subsidiaries and not for the assessee. There is a…
  5. Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:
     
    (i) Though the…