-
It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the heading of a section should also be assigned meaning while interpreting the section. From the heading of the Section 194B it is amply clear that there is no whisper that Section 194B was intended to cover within its purview winnings from horse races.
ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. VERSUS ACIT TDS – 3 (2), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19812 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76790&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Suppression of profit/ fictitious loss in stocks/ derivatives by way of Client Code Modification (CCM): CCM within 1% is absolutely normal. By no stretch of imagination can any AO consider a transaction on the Stock Exchange as income of a person other than the one who has either actually received monies in his bank account (in case of profit) and/or paid any monies from his bank account (in case of losses). The AO has to show that the losses were purchased and the party was given cheque or cash payment in view of such favours
DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19788 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When it comes to taxation, what is relevant is the provision of the Act which deals with taxability, but not guidelines issued by ICAI.
Reliance Corporate IT Park ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19773 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The consent waiver form, could not be termed as information or statements of account and affairs within the meaning of Section 133(6), the non-compliance of which is the primary ingredient to invoke the penal provisions u/s 272A(2)(c).
Shri Shalin Tandon Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
‘Chart’ filed by the assessee alongwith balance sheet, reveals beyond any doubt, that the deduction pertaining to ‘building premises’ was duly disclosed by the assessee in the aforesaid ‘block of assets’.
RASAI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19754 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76618&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee placed on record supporting documentary evidence viz. (i) copies of the returns of the lender companies; (ii) copies of their audited financial statements; (iii) copies of the bank accounts of the lender companies; and (iv) the ‘affidavits’ of the principle officers of the lender companies, wherein they had confirmed the loan transactions.
I.T. O-20 (2) (5) , MUMBAI VERSUS SMT. PRATIMA ASHAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19753 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The cost of acquisition of know-how under development being a self-generated asset is not ascertainable, and hence, no chargeable capital gains would arise.
M/S. BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (1) , MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19752 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Stake money paid by assessee to horse owners for winning of races organized by it, is not liable to TDS under Section 194B or under Section 194BB and thus, assessee should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1).
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19713 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194B / BB
-
partly allows assessee's (JV between Tata and Lockheed Martin) miscellaneous petition [MA] u/s. 254(2) for AY 2011-12, rectifies mistakes in the original order but retains the final decision taken by the Tribunal in the original order to the effect that business of the assessee was not set up till the end of previous year and hence, assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 2.10 crores as revenue expenses was not allowable.
Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostrutures Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19686 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2)
-
The expression 'assessment' can also mean the procedures laid down in the Act, if the context so requires; and, qua Sec. 170 of the Act, the word 'assessment' has to be understood as procedure laid down therein.
FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Private Limited (‘FETSCS’) Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19672 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
e find that this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2013-14 had held the loans received from aforesaid parties to be genuine and deleted the additions made u/s 68.
SHREE LAXMI ESTATE PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 15 (3) (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19669 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76389&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the prime object of the assessee was to let out the portion of the property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture & fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being paid, the income derived therefrom would be assessable under the head “house property”.
DEVBHUMI ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-2 (1) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19666 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Royalty is taxable in India if the payer an Indian resident, except where the royalty is payable in respect of a right, property, information or service used for the payer's business outside India or for earning income outside India.
Rackspace US Inc Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19652 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
An amount can be assessed u/s 2(22) (e), only when funds belonging to the company are utilized by the shareholder for his own benefit, however in case of assessee the car was purchased out of his own money and was not sourced from the funds belonging to the company.
Sajid S. Nadiadwala Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19644 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
Directorate of Income- tax(Investigation) an internal agency/wing of Income tax Department which works under the aegis of its controlling authority CBDT and cannot be considered to be an 'external source'.
Late Shri Amarchand P Shah by Legal Heir Shri Nitin A Shah Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19643 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In case of sale of FSI/TDR rights by the assessee to the developers which have accrued in favour of the assessee following promulgation of Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai, 1991 and the said developmental right were generated by the plot itself and there is no cost of acquisition and therefore not liable for any capital gain tax.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25 (2) (3), MUMBAI VERSUS MR. DEEPAK TALAKSHI SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19621 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76271&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No positive material was brought on record by the AO to decline the explanation of the assessee with regard to receipt of cash during the year in respect of the cheque which could not be deposited in the bank account in the A.Y.2011-12.
MS. JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19613 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76244&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and that of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were specifically relied upon by the counsel for the assessee during the course of the hearing of the appeal, therein constitutes a mistake apparent from record, which renders the order passed while disposing off the appeal in context of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254.
MUKUND LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 (2) (2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19608 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76225&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital vs. Revenue Receipt: Damages received for breach of development agreement are capital in nature & not chargeable to tax. The only right that accrues to the assessee who complains of breach is right to file a suit for recovery of damages from the defaulting party. A breach of contract does not give rise to any debt. A right to recover damages is not assignable because it is not a chose-in-action. Such a mere 'right to sue' is neither a capital asset u/s 2(14) nor is it capable of being transferred & is therefore not chargeable under u/s 45 of the Act (All imp judgements referred)
Chheda Housing Development Corporation vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19600 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The contents of the addendum to the contract supports the contention of the assessee that the assessee was entitled to raise the initial bill only after completion of 30% of the work awarded.
M/S SRM SITES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -14 MUMBAI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-7 (2) (4), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19597 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76192&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.