-
Section 145(3) gives discretion to the AO to make an assessment in the manner provided in Section 144, yet this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
RAMESHCHANDRA RANGILDAS MEHTA, PROP. OF M/S SUNIT TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2) (3), SURAT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19839 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79518&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The inquiry for the purpose of grant of approval u/s 80G relates to, whether the trust is registered u/s 12A, whether it is a trust wholly for charitable purpose or religious purpose and whether the income received by it is liable to be considered u/s 11.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEMPTIONS) VERSUS SHREE TAPESHWAR HANUMAJI BAJRANG CHARITY TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19831 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79491&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The questions of law as proposed by the revenue has no longer integreta in view of the decision of this Court in the case MGM EXPORTS. The ratio of the decision of this Court, which has been applied by the Tribunal is that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Act.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19818 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79484&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VERSUS HIMANSHU CHANDULAL PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19802 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79467&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an order is passed by the CIT (A) on merits despite the fact that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex-parte.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEPTIONS) VERSUS SHREE NIRMAN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19792 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The plain reading of Rule 83 makes it clear that the tax Recovery Officer or other officer, acting under the provisions of Schedule-II, are conferred with the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit for the purpose of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
MAULIKKUMAR VINODKUMAR PATEL VERSUS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19722 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79312&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no application of section 14A as far as the deduction under section 80A to 80U under Chapter VIA of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX VERSUS SURAT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19717 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79293&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee company was entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery which includes office equipment and vehicle, computer, computer software and furniture, fixture used for the purpose of business.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GUJARAT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TECH-CITY CO. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19716 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79294&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Findings recorded by the Tribunal are that AO declines to meet the specific points raised by the assessee in first appellate proceedings, there is obviously no point in challenging the conclusions arrived at in the first appellate proceedings based on vague generalities. No specific issues are raised in appeal before us.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS VAIBHAVLAXMI INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19715 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79295&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of law as proposed by the Revenue is squarely covered by the two decisions which have been referred to by the Tribunal in its impugned order. The principle of law as explained in the two decisions of this Court is that the retrospective amendment to any provision cannot be a ground for making re-assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS ARVIND MILLS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19714 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79297&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of fact recorded by the two revenue authorities is that the assessee offered the total unaccounted income of ₹ 9.29 Crores for the assessment year 2011-12 in his statement recorded during the search and seizure operation u/s. 132(4) of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT VERSUS VIBHUTI ORGANISERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19705 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79284&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, the notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as the assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT-1 VERSUS GOVIND GOPAL GOYAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19704 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79285&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Income Tax Act gives a precise definition to the term 'transfer'. Section 2(47)(ii) talks about extinguishment of rights. The Supreme Court, in Sanjeev Lal's case, is very clear that an agreement to sell would extinguish the rights and the same would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47).
KISHORBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19699 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79235&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether the transactions were bogus or not, cannot be a pure question of fact having regard to the evidence on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS SANDEEP P. SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19697 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79238&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 24 of the Benami Act pertains to notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction.
VIRENDRA RAMANLAL SONI Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19695 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 24, 147
-
The buyback of shares would not in any manner enhance the capital structure of the assessee company and thus there is no increase in capital base of the company.
BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19671 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
No doubt in the present case, AO has applied for such approval which was granted on 29.03.2014, but before grant of approval, the AO has already issued notice on 28.03.2014 which is without any jurisdiction.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT 2 VERSUS ASHOKBHAI JAIN PROP. OF SUPER JEWELS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19664 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79202&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When a claim was processed at length after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, and the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment.
ROYAL INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2) (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19658 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79189&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings recorded by the appellate tribunal that the assessee submitted report of registered valuer vide dated 23.09.2013 during assessment proceedings and the value adopted by the registered valuer was ₹ 99/per sq.mt. from the assessment order, it is also discernable that the AO has completely ignore the report of the registered valuer and without any discussion thereon estimated the cost at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any reasonable basis and justified reasoning.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS JIGNESH BHAGWANDAS PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19657 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79192&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding of fact has been recorded by two revenue authorities that the payments made by the assessee on a single day did not exceed ₹ 20,000/- to a person and if, that be so, there could not have been any disallowance under Section 40A(3).
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 VERSUS RJD BUILDCON LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19656 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79193&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.