-
The Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso.
M/S. SHARDLOW INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 6 (1), CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20414 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79029&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that assessee and his wife are trustees in the trust does not ipso facto prove that they are beneficiaries of this fund nor there is no material on record brought by the Assessing Officer to say that the money was diverted to the trust by the assessee and his wife.
Karuppuswamy Pandiarajan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20392 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Member of the AOP i.e. HPL is entitled to 2% of guaranteed profits regardless of the fact whether AOP made profits or losses. This is only a charge against the profits of the assessee AOP but not share in profits.
Herve Pomerleau International CCCL Joint Venture Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20362 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The copy editing, indexing and doing proof reading required only knowledge in the language and it does not require to have necessary expertise in the subject matter of text. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in saying that the services rendered by the non-residents are technical services.
Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20314 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195
-
Without opting for continuous power supply, the assessee was found in usage of energy during restricted hours (above 15% of contracted load), prohibited by law, thereby, it was levied to pay penalty, which cannot be treated as just like payment of electricity charges, but, it is an offence committed by the assessee against which, the assessee was penalized.
M/S. PACKAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20306 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78660&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The law is settled to the extent that it is outside the domain of the AO to question the necessity of incurring an expenditure. Thus the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer that the transaction for purchase of trademark are not genuine cannot stand test of the law. It is an settled principle of law that intangible assets such as trademark, goodwill are also qualifies for depreciation at prescribed rates.
M/S. INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD 2 (1) , CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20301 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78627&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The services were rendered abroad and the payments for the said services were also made abroad by remitting foreign currency. The aforesaid payments cannot be held to be taxable in India as per the India- Singapore DTAA and consequently the assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 195.
Sundaram Asset Management Consultancy Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20245 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The explanation of the assessee is that it was forced to repay the loan in cash on account of business expediency to meet the working capital limits of one the business concern in which he is interested; cannot be considered to be valid explanation for repayment of loan in cash. The fact that assessee accepted loan in cash and repaid the loan in cash goes to prove that there is active collusion with the lender in evading the taxes.
SHRI. P. SUNDARAMURTHY VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20228 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78295&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee had an NRE account in Canara Bank in India. Although the assessee was non-resident earlier, he became a 'Resident and Ordinarily Resident' in the relevant previous year 2014-15. On the interest income earned from NRE FD account of ₹ 1.10 crore, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10 (4)(ii) in the return of income. AO rejected the assessee's claim of exemption and brought to tax and the CIT(A) upheld it.
SHRI BABA SHANKAR RAJESH VERSUS THE ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20222 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78246&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No lay man can execute a deed of mortgage of his property against the loan availed by a third party/ parties, until and unless the individual has substantial interest over them.
T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20210 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
AO has received information from Sales Tax Department(VAT), Investigation Division, Mumbai intimating that bogus sellers having specified TIN And PAN numbers were operating. The transactions in respect of the assessee has already been categorically identified and specified in respect of the three assessment years. The said documents had been given to the assessee for his rebuttal. The assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the Purchasers affected with the material evidence.
M/S. S.V.P.N.S.N. BALASIVAJI NADAR & SONS VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, VIRDHUNAGAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20117 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77799&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The reasoning given by the lower authorities to assess the income under the head business is, in our view, very well justified. Further, since in this case, the business activity of the assessee is trading in shares, there can be a presumption that the amount claimed was derived through trade. In such case, the assessee has to establish that the impugned amount was indeed invested and the proceeds of sales were of a capital asset. However, the assessee has not laid any such material either before the lower authorities or before us. Therefore, no merit in the submissions of the assessee and hence dismiss the appeals.
SHRI AMIT JAIN VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ERODE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20102 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77764&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Income disclosed by the assessee in the Return of Income which is not part of Regular Accounts is liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and (ii) the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to levy penalty u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on the undisclosed income cannot be sustained. Hence the action of the Assessing Officer to sustain the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied vide order dt 27/6/2011 in the revision order dt 13/1/2017 is upheld. is justified and hence, we do not find any merit in the assessee’s appeal.
SMT. R. MAHALAKSHMI VERSUS THE ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE – 17 (1), CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20092 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77705&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the warrants are issued, the share price of the said company was Rs.133/-. By the time the right to convert the warrant to shares, the price of the share traded was less than Rs.60/- per share. Therefore, the assessee company has chosen to forego the share application money and incurred loss of Rs.6,60,00,000/-.
Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20077 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee is under bonafide belief not liable to be audited in the light of the guidance note issued by the ICAI and constitutes reasonable cause u/s 273B for non-levy of penalty u/s 271B.
Jude Angelo Menezes Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20076 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
It is the practice in the business to hand over the collection as soon as the film is screened. Therefore the assessee is forced to pay the amount collected from the theatres on Sunday night itself after screening the film when the banks are closed. Hence the exclusion prescribed under Rule 6DD.2(j) of the Rules is applicable in the case of the assessee for the payment made during the period when the Bank do not function. For the above stated reason we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made by invoking the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act.
M/S. NVR CINEMA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD – 20 (5) , CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20074 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77617&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of Sec. 50C cannot be applied to the case of deeming the value of consideration like cases covered by provisions of 45(3). Provisions of Sec.45(3) and 50C operate in different spheres and are not overlapping. The special provisions [u/s. 45(3)] prevail over general provisions.
Shri Sarrangan Ashok Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19996 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 50C
-
Since the tenant in this case happened to be the subsidiary/joint venture company incurring persistent losses and the rent was waived, so it cannot be reason not to tax the amount due from tenant. Therefore, the rent payable by the tenant by waiver would amount to application of income and it cannot be construed as overriding title.
M/s CRP (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19921 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Asessee had raised three specific grounds w.r.t validity of re-assessment u/s.147, vagueness in notices u/s.148 & 143(2) before the CIT(A), however, CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said grounds, but only adjudicated the grounds on merits regarding the addition made by the AO.
Shri N. Karuppusamy Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19687 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
A claim which is legally allowable cannot be disallowed for the reason that the same was pointed out in the course of assessment proceedings by way of filing of revised computation of income.
Karmen International P. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19641 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 80IA
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.