Assessee Cannot Be Penalised U/S 271(1)(c) Of Income Tax Act For Merely Raising A Plausible Claim: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a plausible claim. Whether such claim is tenable in law or not is an altogether different issue. What is relevant to...

Benefit Of Cash Compensatory Scheme Cannot Be Denied On Castor Oil Exports Based On Subsequent Test Change: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit. There is no dispute that the exports made for the period under consideration were in respect of contracts executed prior to 23 June...

Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment. Brief Facts: This Petition has been...

Design & Engineering Services To Foreign Entities Are Zero-Rated Supplies; Assessee Eligible For Refund Of Unutilized ITC U/S 54 Of CGST Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court stated that design and engineering services to foreign entities are zero-rated supplies; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST. The Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that assessee is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2(6) is fully satisfied in the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account...

AO Cannot Alter Net Profit In Profit & Loss Account Except Under Explanation To S.115J Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss account except as per explanation to Section 115J Of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik observed that “Section 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of a company whose total income as computed under the provisions of the Act 1961 is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income chargeable to...

[Income Tax] Breach Of Article 265 Cannot Be Alleged Based On Inconclusive Opinion By Assessing Officer: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer. The Division Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach...

Does Payment For Transponder Services Constitute 'Royalty' U/S 9(1)(vi) Of Income Tax Act? Bombay High Court Asks CIT To Decide

The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of...

Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala

The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala.It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of ...

Treaty Provisions Don't Override Customs Law: Bombay High Court Upholds SCN Issued For Alleged Misuse Of Import Exemptions

The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned. In this case,...

Cash Credit Account Cannot Be Treated As Property Of Account Holder Which Can Be Considered U/S 83 Of GST Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act. In this case, the petition has been filed by the...

Amount Of Subsidy Received By Assessee From RBI Cannot Be Treated As 'Interest' Chargeable U/S 4 Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on...

[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justices Jitendra Jain and M.S. Sonak allowed writ petitions seeking enhanced solatium under National Highways Act, 1956 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh and Ors. While doing so the Court rejected the argument of the Respondent that the petitions ought to be dismissed as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) The Court held...