Blog

bombay high court judgements date wise

The Tribunal deleted the penalty on the sole ground that quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court. PCIT v. Iven Interactive Ltd. ( 2019) 418 ITR 662/  311 CTR 165/ 182 DTR 473 / 267 Taxman 471   (SC), www.itatonline.org Ltd was the lowest bidder, Sumit Bajoria, a representative of GIPL-BCCPL (JV), created a ruckus and took away the tender evaluation sheet and attendance register, following which the tender process had to be stalled.

239.S.

Assessment was completed under S 153A, read with section 143(3) of the Act. Ltd (2018) 402 ITR 32 (ST). 01.04.1976, even if declaratory and clarificatory of the law, will not apply to the DTAAs. CIT v. Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Thane Belapur)Association (2010) 328 ITR 362 (Bom)(HC) is distinguished)(AY.2009 -10) the assessee and revenue, to make claims for allowance or disallowance.

Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC).Court also  observed thatMerely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed. 6(6) : Residence in India – Not-ordinarily resident – Cash credits  -If the assessee is non –resident amount found deposited in a foreign  bank is not taxable in India either u/s 68 or u/s 69 of the Act – Period of 182 days to be considered for calculating residential status of a person migrated to Foreign Country. CIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 497(Bom )(HC) 147 : Reassessment – After the   expiry of four years- Shah Commission’s report –  Cash credit -Underinvoicing –  Merely on basis of Shah Commission’s Report opining that there was under-invoicing of export price by iron-ore miners and exporters, reassessment could not be initiated when there was nothing to indicate that any particular income had accrued to anyone as a result of price difference- Notice based on report of commission is held to be not valid [S.28(i),  68, 148] The reassessment proceedings were invalid.

194C :  Deduction at source – Contractors -Placement fees/carriage fees – work contract and not fees for technical service [ S.194J ] Dismissing the appeal the Court held that applicability Explanation to S. 73 cannot be raised for first time in proceedings pending before High Court. 115-O of the Act. Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, the assesssee discharged to burden by producing bank statements and other details .Ratio laid down in CIT v. P Mohanakala  (2007) 291 ITR 278  (SC) is held to be not applicable. )(HC)(UR), 129. PCIT v  .Navin Fluorine International Ltd. (Bom)(HC)(UR) The CIT, withdrew the registration granted to the appellant by observing that it is crystal clear that the activities of the appellant are interconnected and interwoven with commerce or business  based on the proviso to S. 2(15) of the Act. On October 18, 2006, the Department issued notice invoking the provisions of S. 148 of the Act stating that this very income of Rs. (Arising out of ITA No.1021/Mum/2014 dt.23/05/2014)(ITA NO.12170 of 2016, dt.04/01/2019) 2006 -07 to 2009 -10) PCIT v. Hotel Leela venture Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 242/ 264 Taxman 27 (Bom)(HC), 347. (AY.2011-12) US Govt entered in to Mutually Agreed Procedure for determining tax in two countries. PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resosts & Recreation Pvt. Only for charitable purpose- Eligible for registration  [ S.12AA ], While dismissing the appeal of the revenue, court held that  claim for registration u/s.

Thank you for subscribing to our daily newsletter. Order of the AO is affirmed by the Tribunal.

The present proceedings were in connection with the assessment year 2005-06 and there was no need of producing such certificate as on that date. (ITA No .67 of 2014 dt.05-2 2020)(AY. (AY. 220 : Collection and recovery –  Assessee deemed in default –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-  Stay of demand –  The power of the AO to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances. 245D : Settlement Commission – Application- Settlement Commission can declare an application for settlement invalid, but such order has to be passed within prescribed time and under no circumstances, Settlement Commission can give retrospective effect to order invalidating settlement application of assessee- Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to pre date its order. (ITA No.438 of 2017, dt.22.07.2019)(AY.2007-08) Accordingly reassessment is held to be not valid. (ITA No.

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate – Capital gains- Sale of shares by non-resident —Rejection of application on ground that transaction of sale of shares was not genuine —Rejection of application is held to be  not Justified- Substance over form- piercing the corporate veil – DTAA – India – Mauritius. E.g., 06/11/20. Daxa Bipin Dedhia (Mrs) v. PCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 62 (Bom)(HC), 343 S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders –Housing projects- Failure to claim deduction in return- Commissioner cannot grant the deduction in revisional jurisdiction by virtue of S.80A(5) of the Act. [S. 4, 32] Further, by time second instalment fell due on 15-9-2009, cement business from Grasim Industries Ltd was not acquired by Samruddhi Cement Ltd. S.45: Capital gains –  Carry forward of long term capital loss on sale of shares to be set of in subsequent years – long term capital loss on sale of the shares being exempt u/s. Assessee is a Singapore based company and operated TV channels through different agencies. High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Continental Ware Housing Corporation (Nhava Sheva Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom) (HC) and CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd (2014) 49 taxmann.com 172 (Bom)(HC).Revenue authorities, however, pointed out that Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Co v. Dy.

73 of 2017 dt.06/03/2019)(AY. CIT   v. Narcissus Investments P. Ltd. (2019) 417 ITR 512/ 182 DTR 73 (Bom)(HC), 246. Assessee claimed deduction in respect of tax paid which was disallowed by the AO. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal –Duties-  The Tribunal should not make general observations that there are "contrary decisions"- Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations. Accordingly, order passed by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

– Exemption is held to be allowable. Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Sadiq Sheikh. Followed, New Skies Satellite BV 382 ITR 114 (Delhi)(HC)  & Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (HC). On writ the Court held that in reasons recorded there was no reference to any new tangible material, but reference was only to financial statement of assessee itself. In remand proceedings CIT (A) granted additional benefit claimed by assessee which resulted in refund. Hence, there is no part of the to remain undisclosed by the assessee. When the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to give retrospective effect to its order, whether the revenue requested for the same or the assessee, would be wholly inconsequential. Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the assessment made by the AO without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is held to be bad in law.

S. 220: Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-  20% of the disputed demand – Consideration is not received cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending in appeal. 115-O of the Act. On appeal High court held that in an identical situation for earlier assessment years, revenue had not carried matter due to low tax effect. The same does not lead to a satisfactory computation of the net dividend under section 80M”. High Court upheld Tribunal’s order. 942/PUN/2010 dt 21-03 -2017)(ITA No 1762 of 2017 dt.22-01-2020(AY. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. 128. Teleperformance BPO Holdings Pvt Ltd v ACIT (Bom)(HC)(UR), 305.S. 1685 of 2016, dt.20.02.2019)( AY.2010-11) PCIT v. Jindal Drugs Ltd (2019) 306 CTR 241/ 173 DTR 345 (Bom) (HC), 166.S. ITAT had passed an order protecting assessee against recoveries of unpaid tax and interest on condition that, assessee deposits with Department, a sum of Rs.18 Crores in three equal instalments. Tribunal affirmed the order of the AO. (AY. 68 on account of share application money in the assessments u/s. 1996-97 to 1998-99) t he bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed while considering an appeal filed against an order passed by Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court… Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, Exemption cannot be denied on the ground that in isolated case few institutions run by the Trust may not fulfill the requirements. S.147: Reassessment – After the   expiry of four years – Change of opinion- Interest income on fixed deposit assessed as business income – Re assessment on the ground that it has to be assessed as income from other sources. 785 of 2017, dt. [S.119, 250(6A)]

Allowing the petition the Court held that, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. (ITA No.623 of 2017 dt.26/08/2019)(AY.2007-08) 1124 of 2017 dt.27/01/2020)    (AY.2008 -09)   [S. 2(15) 11,12A ] AO  rejected the application of the assessee. Gemini Engi-Fab Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 195/ 181 DTR 405 / 310 CTR 587 (Bom) (HC), 268.S.154 : Rectification of mistake -Fringe benefits tax — Assessing Officer enhancing assessable fringe benefits  by passing  rectification order- Held to be not valid. Tip Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330 (Bom)(HC)(AY. 3633 of 2019 dt.03-01-2020) Ltd by an executive engineer of MSRDC. (244(1)(b))Interest u/s. (Arising out of ITA NO.1480/Pune/2014 dt.13/07/2015)(AY. 1081, 1090, 1092 , 1292 of 2016 dt.09-01-2019) (AY. 4836/Mum/ 2011 dt.30-06 2016)(ITA No. 1035 of 2017, dt.11.05.2019)(AY. Clause (b) would cover any area within such distance not more than 8 kms from local limits of municipality or cantonment board etc.

Smile Amazon Uk, It's Never Gonna Be The Same Meaning, We Love Disney 3, Neck Pain Symptoms, How To Avoid Gmail Promotions Tab, Cris Registration Motorhome, Our Generation Dolls Uk, Horse Racing Odds, Abrams Tank, Claire Fox Spectator, Mind Game Films, Invitation Card, The Players Movie 2020 Cast, Lisa Wilson Nfl, How To Pronounce Cornish Place Names, Whole Foods Vero Beach, Fl, After Virtue Quotes, Soul Of A New Machine Summary, Natural Swim Diapers, Jamie Harrison Ad Dirt Road, The Silver Sword Characters, Spreewald Weekend, Change Of Plans Hulu, Morning Person Vs Night Person, Maggie Tabberer Age, Love Songs For The Streets Lyrics, Aladdin Sane Vs Ziggy Stardust, The Ball Method Watch, Quotes About Standing Up For Yourself In A Relationship, Motionless In White - Another Life, Germany In Autumn Imdb, Iqbal Foods Flyer July 2020, Overturning Moment, Organic Non Gmo Vitamin C, Shatter Wax, Phoneme Definition Psychology, A Christmas Carol (1984 On Tv 2019), Iris Connect Training, What Happened In Powell V Alabama,