-
Once Form no. 15G has been received by the assessee, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is uncalled for, despite its alleged non-submission to the department.
B. Nanji A. Mehta Lodha & Co. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27906 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 194A, 40(a)(ia)
-
Section 263 could be taken if twin conditions viz. impugned order should be erroneous, and it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Kaushikbhai P. Patel Vs Pr.Commissioner of IT-7
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27905 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 263
-
Rule 17A nowhere envisages the existence of a trust deed or its registration, the factum of existence of trust can also be established by producing documents evidencing the creation of the trust.
The Panchkuva Cloth Merchant Association Vs The CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 12AA
-
(i) The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act on the sale of land, as the assessee was holding more than one residential unit. (ii) Assuming the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, then it was the duty of the revenue to provide the rightful claim of the assessee which is available under the provisions of law but the same was not claimed by the assessee under the wrong believe. As such, the Revenue cannot take the benefit of the ignorance of the assessee rather it was duty-bound to extend the benefit available to the assessee under the provisions of law.
SANJAY SURENDRABHAI GOR VERSUS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3 (2) AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27620 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Though it could be said that land was purchased by Assessee, in reality transaction never materialised as such no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b).
Nitin Ishwarbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27142 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
MMC Bank was sick bank and the amount of FDs deposited by the assessee-bank with MMC Bank has not received by the assessee bank.
ACIT, SABARKANTHA CIR. HIMATNAGAR. VERSUS THE HIMATNAGAR NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27071 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91492&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no question for treating the amount of share capital received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68
M/S. CALICA RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VERSUS I.T.O., WARD-1 (1) (3), AHMEDABAD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue cannot pick and choose certain amounts representing the share of the beneficiaries and tax in the hands of the assessee and simultaneously not charging the tax in the hands of the assessee with respect to majority of the beneficiaries.
M/S AQUAGEL PROMOTERS GROUP SHARE HOLDERS TRUST VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2 (3) BHAVNAGAR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27029 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no provision under the law for making the assessment on protective basis.
PRAVINKUMAR VALJIBHAI PUJARA HUF VERSUS I.T.O, WARD-2, PATAN.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26951 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90920&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessment order was passed on 30.6.2017, and the clause, on the strength of which this reference was made to the TPO, stand omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Therefore, no proceedings under section 263 should have been undertaken by the ld. Commissioner.
SHRI ASHISH SUBODCHANDRA SHAH VERSUS PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26939 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 153C contemplates documents seized or requisitioned during the search. It does not talk of information.
SBG INFRASTRUCTURE LLP. VERSUS DCIT, CENT. CIR. 2 BARODA. AND JCIT (OSD) , CENT. CIR. 2 BARODA. VERSUS SBG INFRASTRUCTURE LLP.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90734&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Advances given by the lender was not for the individual benefit of the shareholder but for business purposes and therefore such transactions would not fall within the sweep of deeming fiction created under s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD VERSUS M/S. KRISHNA COIL CUTTERS PVT. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26883 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90647&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2) (viib): The object of s. 56(2)(viib) is to tax excessive share premium received unjustifiably by private companies on issue of shares without carrying underlying value. However, shares issued to shareholders of an amalgamating company in terms of a scheme of amalgamation does not fall within the sweep of the deeming provisions of s. 56(2) (viib). The so-called excess value of assets vested on amalgamation cannot be notionally termed as premium over the face value for the purposes of the deeming provision (AS-14 issued by the ICAI & CBDT Circular No 3/2012 dated 12-6-2012 referred)
DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26538 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56(2) (viib)
-
In so far as the applicability of the scope/tax rate w.r.t. the remittance made to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the beneficial tax rate contained in the DTAAs.
Jyoti Limited Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26432 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 206AA
-
In absence of PE or business connection in India, commission paid to non-resident agents was not liable to tax under the provision of the act.
GHCL Ltd Vs Dy. CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26402 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
In order to bring to tax a receipt an assessee should have unflinching right of ownership and disposition, control and use, and in the impugned case, it seems that everything is belonging to the company.
Yatish Kumar Amarnath Bansal Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26350 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Application under Rule 24 of ITAT Rules is not guided by any time limit and sufficient cause for non-appearance is the only requirement.
Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs The DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The cost incurred to secure the foreign currency liability against the exchange fluctuation is akin to insurance policies, taken in the course and for the purpose of the business and hence, deductible u/s 37(1).
Deep Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26034 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 43A
-
The primary onus lay upon the assessee to establish that the assessee does not hold the voting power beyond the stipulated threshold limit in the same proportion as equity shares for which burden was sought to be wrongly shifted upon the AO.
Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24684 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 151
-
Question of possession of insider information is irrelevant short-term capital loss incurred with respect to the units which were purchased within a period of three months prior to the record date and sold within a period of nine months after such record date, shall be ignored to the extent of such loss, not exceeding the amount of dividend income for computing the income chargeable to tax.
Yesha Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24638 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.