Month: September 2017

Bombay H.C : Maharashtra VAT – Though there is no Illegality in provisions of section 11 of Maharashtra VAT Act and rule 6 of VAT Rules relating to appointment of Administrative Members of Tribunal, but it will be advisable for State Government to amend rule 6 and to prescribe term of office and/or age of retirement

High Court Of Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of Maharashtra Section : 109, 11 A.S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Writ Petition No. 2069 Of 2015 September 29, 2017 JUDGMENT A.S. Oka, J. – The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date and today …

Bombay H.C : An asset cannot move out of the ‘Block of Assets’, if depreciation was allowed to the asset some time in the past, even though depreci tion was claimed for many years thereafter

High Court Of Bombay Meena V. Pamnani vs. CIT Section 50, 48(2), 80(J) Asst. Year 1991-92 S.C. Dharmadhikari & Prakash D. Naik, JJ. Income Tax Reference No. 96 OF 2000 29th September, 2017 S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ‘A’, Mumbai (‘Tribunal’ for sho t) at the instance of assessee, …

CESTAT- Mumbai : Where assessee was engaged in exporting goods to foreign customers and for that purpose it availed services of warehousing logistic in foreign country and paid service tax on reverse charge basis under category of ‘storage and warehousing services’, it was entitled to credit of service tax paid

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Eaton Industrial Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Section 16 Period August, 2008 to November, 2012 Raju, Technical Member Order No. A/89796/17/SMB Appeal No.E/89454/14 September  28, 2017  ORDER 1. The appellant, M/s. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. are in demand against denial of Cenvat Credit on certain services received by …

CESTAT-Mumbai : Where appellant company made reimbursement to its associate company for providing internet services to it on basis of usage, same was liable to tax under reverse charge mechanism

CESTAT Mumbai Bench Vishay Components India (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Section : 9, 68, 65(50b) Period 2006-07 to 2008-09 Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member And Raju, Technical Member Order No. A/89891/17/STB Appeal No. ST/89201/13 September 25, 2017 ORDER Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member – The fact of the case is that appellant M/s. Vishay …

Kerala H.C : Where penalty has been levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act and as the Sections do not specify any minimum penalty or maximum penalty

High Court Of Kerala JCIT & Ors. vs. Grihalakshmi Productions & Another Section 271D, 271E Antony Dominic & A.M.Babu, JJ. WA.No. 1723 of 2017 & IN WP(C).6418/2017 22nd September, 2017 Counsel Appeared: Christopher Abraham, Income Tax Dep K.M.V.Pandalai, Income Tax Department for the Petitioner. : Premjit Nagendran for the Respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, J.: Writ Appeal Nos.1723, …

Delhi H.C : The assessment proceedings had to necessarily be completed by the AO within the time limit specified in Section 153 (2A) of the Act. Inasmuch as the AO failed to do so, the impugned notice dated 14th September 2015 issued by the AO and all proceedings consequential thereto including the order dated 2nd December 2015 passed by the AO are hereby set aside.

High Court Of Delhi Nokia India Private Limited vs. DCIT Section 144-C, 143(3), 254 Asst. Year 2007-08 S. Muralidhar & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 1773/2016 21st September, 2017 Counsel appeared: Vikas Srivastava, Jatinder Pal Singh, Sumit Mangal and Kanika Jain, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Sanjay Jain, ASG with N. P. Sahni and Rahul …

Delhi H.C : Where assessee-company was formed for purchasing and selling properties, earning of rental income by letting out properties owned by it was chargeable to tax under head ‘income from house property’ and not under head ‘Profits and gains of business’

High Court Of Delhi Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. Section 22, 28(i) Assessment years 1984-85 to 1992-93 and 1997-98 to 1998-99 Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. WT Appeal Nos. 16-18, 20-21, 25-28, 34 & 35 Of 2005 September  21, 2017   JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.  – These are eleven appeals by …

Gujarat H.C : Where assessee claimed that no amount could be taxed in hands of assessee treating it as deemed dividend if it was not a shareholder of payee company but had not disputed that other conditions of section 2(22)(e) were satisfied in its case and return of assessee was accepted without scrutiny, reassessment was justified

High Court Of Gujarat Sunrise Broking (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO Sections 2(22), 148 Akil Kureshi And Biren Vaishnav, JJ. Special Civil Application No. 19091 Of 2016 September 20, 2017 JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. – The petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening of the assessment dated 31.3.2016 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer to reopen the …

S.C : Provisions of section 115-O are constitutionally valid

Supreme Court Of India Union of India Vs. Tata Tea Co. Ltd. Section : 115-O A.K. Sikri And Ashok Bhushan, Jj. Civil Appeal Nos. 9178 To 9180 Of 2012 September 20, 2017 JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. – The constitutional validity of Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961, Act’) as inserted …
Malcare WordPress Security