-
The findings of fact recorded by the tribunal that no material was recovered during the search as per the provisions of section 153(C), which could have been treated as incriminating material and which have been made as a base for supporting the action of the department.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT-1 VERSUS AMIT VASANTLAL SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19655 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79194&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice u/s 148 is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same.
BIPINBHAI BACHUBHAI KATARIA L/R OF LATE BACHUBHAI RAMBHAI KATARIA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19653 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79195&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that Section 14A of the Act can be invoked only if the assessee seeks to square off the expenditure against the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, and in such circumstances, Section 14A of the Act could not have been invoked, more particularly, when no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment years.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GREENLAND INFRACON P. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19631 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79131&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As Revenue conceded before it that the addition had been made in the hands of the representative bank account holders to which the amount deposited would be made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holders of the accounts.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS AMITKUMAR T PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19625 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79099&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Necessary details were called for by the authority concerned in connection with the assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) . In response to such notice, the writ applicant had furnished complete details as indicated from various documentary evidence on record.
JARUN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19624 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79101&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Facts reveal that in the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 the third respondent granted the petitioner three days time to pay at least 20% of the demand and produce a copy of the challan to him. Thus, though the instruction provides for review before the PCIT, sufficient time was not granted to the petitioner.
VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHER (S)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19573 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79004&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal took the view that the CIT while holding that the assessment order was erroneous in exercise of its power u/s 263 ought to have indicated that the conclusion or findings recorded by the AO were either not based on correct facts or the order had been passed in breach of the provisions of the Act or revision made thereunder.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 VERSUS HARIKRISHAN S VIRMANI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19572 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79010&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This circular thus lays down 15% of the disputed demand to be deposited for stay, by way of a general condition. The circular does not prohibit or envisage that there can be no deviation from this standard formula.
SHRI DALPATSINH UKABHAI VASAVA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19564 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79003&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Court does not find the impugned provision to be in any manner unconstitutional, hence, the question of reading it down to save its constitutional validity does not arise. Besides, the provisions of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB are clear and ambiguous and it is not possible to take two views as to the meaning of the statutory language. Hence, the request to read down the provision also does not merit acceptance.
CAIRN INDIA HOLDING LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) -1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19557 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78996&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Deduction u/s. 80IB - composite development of housing project - Combining two projects into one will lead to a result which manifestly will be unjust and absurd and defeat the very provisions of the deduction sections. Unless there is a clear intention of the legislature the Revenue cannot be permitted to do so.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NAGJUA DEVELOPERS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19473 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78909&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the 2015 amendment to Sec. 153C is prospective and not retrospective, therefore proceedings u/s. 153C is quashed by HC.
ANILUKMAR GOPIKISHAN AGRAWAL Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19450 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 153C
-
Time taken by the assessee for in pursuing the remedy before HC would stand excluded while computing the time limit for passing the order by Settlement Commission.
AKSHAR BUILDERS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19276 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
HC - The assessee is the purchaser and not the seller and hence, the valuation adopted by the Stamp authority could not have been made the basis from coming to the conclusion that there is unexplained investment. u/s 69B.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VERSUS DHARMAJA INFRASTRUCTURE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19228 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78609&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 69C - Amount had not been expended by the assessee but was merely routed through the assessee, the question of debiting such amount to the profit and loss account did not arise.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VERSUS HINA ABHAY VASAVADA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18014 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77249&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and cannot be cured u/s 292BB.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS MARCK BIOSCIENCES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17962 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77169&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 Reopening of s. 143(1) assessment: Law on whether reopening to assess alleged Bogus Capital gains from penny stocks is permissible explained in the context of Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC) & Zuari Estate 373 ITR 661 (SC)
Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16305 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 147, 143(1)
-
S. 254(2): (i) Mere pendency of appeal in the High Court does not preclude the Tribunal's power of rectification, (ii) Fact that there is difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal would, by itself, nor mean that the error sought to be rectified is not apparent on the record & (iii) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recall an order based on submissions made and upon consideration of materials on record. The power of rectification are circumscribed with the condition that the same can be exercised for correcting error be of law or facts apparent on record. The jurisdiction to correct errors vested in the Tribunal is not akin to review powers
Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir vs. ITAT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16107 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 254(2)
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 on commission to non-resident agents for procuring export orders even though some sale happened in India
Ferromatic Milacron India Pvt Ltd Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16012 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 195
-
S. 276C/ 279 Compounding of offenses: The expression "amount sought to be evaded" in CBDT's compounding guidelines dated 23.12.2014 means the amount of "tax sought to be evaded" and not the amount of "income sought to be evaded"
Supernova System Private Limited vs. CCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15842 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 276C, 279
-
S. 192/ 205: If the deductor has deducted TDS and issued Form 16A, the deductee has to be given credit even if the deductor has defaulted in his obligation to deposit the TDS with the Government revenue
Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15840 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 192, 205
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.