-
In the absence of any nexus between the unaccounted income & unexplained investment/expenditure, AO had rightly denied set off.
CIT Vs MANOJBHAI BHUPATRAI VADODARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23015 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 28, 37
-
Tribunal is final fact finding authority and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as revenue and thereafter has arrived at findings of fact. Tribunal has sustained the addition with regard to the interest income as it was found as a matter of fact that the interest calculated by the assessing officer was a gross calculation about amount to be received and paid by the group as a whole.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NAMAN ASSOCIATES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22980 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83150&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, while the Assessing Officer has information that M/s JP Infrastructure Limited has advanced unsecured loans as referred to therein to its sister concerns, viz. Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd., there is no information to the effect that such payment was made for the benefit of the petitioner.
Jayesh T Kotak Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22589 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
In the entire reasons recorded there is not even a whisper that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It being an admitted position that the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in a case where a scrutiny assessment has been made u/s 143(3) it was incumbent upon the AO to record, in the reasons itself, as to whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS M/S. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22443 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82883&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the year under consideration, the assessee was not carrying any business activity in terms of the main object of the assessee company. While assessee had borrowed monies from Matrix Logistics Private Limited, it had not claimed any deduction or allowance in respect of the same. The accounting entries cannot be determinative of the nature of receipt and what can be added to income under section 41(1) of the Act is something in respect of which, deduction has been allowed in the past.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22377 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that there was no defect or infirmity in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and has applied the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arrow Exim Pvt. Ltd to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal merely having applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case, the said ground of appeal does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 VERSUS GOPALA POLYPLAST LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22343 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82786&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee along with the month-wise details of purchase and sale of wheat and wheat atta (flour) showed that the atta that was sold by the assessee was converted from the stock of wheat that was already available with it. Therefore, the purchase of stock of such atta was reflected in the wheat purchase account and not in the atta purchase account. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence to demonstrate the same, which was found to be correct and it was seen that the quantity records and closing stock of wheat and atta confirms the explanation.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS MOHMED SHAKIL MOHMED SHAFI MUTWALI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22342 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82788&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In terms of the Circular No.15 dated 8.5.1969, for the purpose of calculation of tax deductible at source under section 192, self-certification on the part of the employee that the conveyance was owned by him and being used by him for the purposes of employment was adequate. The present case relates to uniform allowance, which as noticed earlier is exempt from tax under section 10(14)(i) of the Act read with rule 2BB(1)(f) of the rules to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22288 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82715&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is clearly beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in view of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the respondent has to record the reason as to whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts for its assessment for the year under consideration.
ASIAN TUBES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (1) (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22287 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82714&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is apparent that the AO had made addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of disclosure made by Shri Nayan Thakkar by bifurcating the amount of ₹ 12 crore into three parts, ₹ 8 crore in the hands of Kunvarji Finance Private Limited, ₹ 2 crore in the hands of Shri Nayan Thakkar and ₹ 2 crore in the hands of the assessee as amount received for providing client code modification.
PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22244 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82648&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the loss of earlier years have already lapsed, then the same cannot be notionally carried forward and set off against the profit and gains of the assessee's business for the year under consideration in computing the quantum of deduction under section 80IA(1) of the Act, 1961.
VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22236 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 80IA
-
From the various pronouncements, the principle discernible is that, it is the bounden duty of the court to ascertain for what purpose the legal fiction has been created. It is also the duty of the Court to imagine the fiction with all real consequences and instances unless prohibited from doing so. That apart, the use of the term deemed has to be read in its context and further the fullest logical purpose and import are to be understood. It is because in modern legislation, the term deemed has been used for manifold purposes.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS ADDOR FOUNDATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21206 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82617&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Any income generated by the assessee from events like Garba is utilised fully for the purposes of the objects of the assesse. The activities like organizing the event of Garba including the sale of tickets and issue of passes etc. cannot be termed as business.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Vs UNITED WAY OF BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21203 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 11
-
In the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act.
SEQUEL LOGOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21153 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82524&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the expenditure incurred on replacement of plant and machinery is a capital expenditure. In such circumstances, we answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We take notice of the fact that while disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A), the Tribunal has not assigned any good reason.
PRECISION WIRES INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21143 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82489&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored the material which is required to be considered or has taken into consideration the material which is not relevant. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has arrived at the aforesaid finding of fact without any evidence. Therefore, the application of Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be said to be ignored by the Tribunal, as canvassed by the Revenue.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 3 VERSUS GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21075 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82213&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes it obligatory for the employer before paying him his wages to deduct the employee's contribution along with the employer's own contribution as fixed by Government. The employer is further obliged to pay the same within fifteen days of the close of every month pay i.e. such contribution and administrative charges.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21057 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82190&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory notice, upon issuance of which, the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction to frame the scrutiny assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Consequently, if such notice is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 143 viz. before the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished, it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed further with the assessment.
KUNAL STRUCTURE (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21051 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82174&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely on the basis of admission, the assessee cannot be subjected to additions. The Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to observe that unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission, the department would be justified in making additions. In other words the proposition of law as laid down is that the department cannot start with the confessional statement. The confessional statement has to be brought in aid of other materials on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT VERSUS NAGESHWAR ENTERPRISES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21028 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82146&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Search & Seizure: The action of the GST authorities of camping in the assessee's home for 8 days and placing him under house arrest is illegal & a blatant abuse of powers. It has shocked the conscience of the court. This unauthorised action of the officers may tantamount to an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The officials cannot take shelter behind ignorance of law to justify their illegal actions. It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officials
Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20998 (HC-GUJARAT)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.