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

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (shivshahi_punarvasan_state_govt_psu_cod.pdf)

State Govt. PSUs do not need COD approval

The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval was required for appeals before the Tribunal in Income-tax matters. It was pointed out that though in ONGC vs. CIDCO 2007 (7) SCC 39, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a Committee to sort out differences between the Central Government and State Government entities, and a Committee would be constituted by the UOI to look into disputes on a case to case, this was not necessary in income-tax matters. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set-aside for a decision on the merits.

Note: The same view has been taken in Gujarat Mineral Development Corp vs. ITAT 25 DTR 241 (Guj) albeit without noticing ONGC vs. CIDCO. See Also: Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn 22 DTR 531 (Pune) (Trib.)

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal (Bombay High Court) 

    As s. 192 requires the employer to deduct tax on the “estimated income” of the employee, the test is whether he acted in a bona fide and honest manner. Where the employer allowed the employees deduction under sections 10(5) and 10(14) only on the basis of declarations filed by…
  2. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    Non-compete compensation paid to an employee for an indefinite period is business expenditure and not capital expenditure as no capital asset or benefit of enduring benefit came into existence. While the lenght of the period of the covenant is important, it is not decisive. What is more important is…
  3. Mahendra D. Jain vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result…
  4. Moser Baer India Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) 

    Where the assessees challenged by writ petitions the orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) in relation to “International transactions” on the grounds that the said orders were passed without granting an oral hearing and without considering the documents and information filed…
  5. Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though it is the settled position under the common law that the term “owner” means a person who has valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc, a different view has to be taken in…