-
MAT - No adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB.
LAQSHYA MEDIA LIMITED [EARLIER KNOWN AS “LAKQSHYA MEDIA PVT LTD.] VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 (2) (1) , MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16120 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68224&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In case of irrevocable transfer of lands from the state government to the assessee corporation, assessee cannot be held as owner of the land and income not taxable in its hand.
MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UDYOG SARATHI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) -2 (1) , MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16114 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68199&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in purchase transactions (purchase of material in the grey market ) to factorize for profit earned against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases.
DHIRAJ BABULAL JAIN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-19 (1) (4), MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16084 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68044&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The date of final occupation of the new residential property under consideration shall be taken as the date of acquisition of the same by the assessee for the purpose of determining her eligibility towards claim of deduction under Sec. 54.
SMT. RANJANA R. DESHMUKH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICE, ASHAR I.T. PARK
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16083 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68050&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 250/ 254: If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay
ITO vs. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16059 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 250, 254
-
S. 69A Black Money: If the assessee is a discretionary beneficiary of the HSBC Bank Account and is not the owner, addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained. In the case of a discretionary trust, the income of the trust cannot be added in the hands of the beneficiary. The trustees are the representative assessees who are liable to be taxed for the income of the trust (All judgements considered)
Deepak B Shah vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16056 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69A
-
S. 90(2): If a non-resident assessee derives income from multiple sources in India, it is entitled to adopt the provisions of the Act for one source and the DTAA for the other source, whichever is more beneficial to it, even though the payer is common for both sources
Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16039 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 90(2)
-
S. 68 Bogus share premium: The AO cannot assess the share premium as income on the ground that it is "excessive". The share premium worked out in the Valuation Certificate is the minimum amount that can be collected by the assessee under RBI regulations. There is no bar on collecting higher amount as share premium. There are several factors that are taken into consideration while issuing the equity shares to shareholders/investors, such as Venture capital funds and Private Equity funds. The premium is determined between the parties on the basis of commercial considerations and cannot be questioned by the tax authorities. The AO is not entitled to sit on the arm chair of a businessman and regulate the manner of conducting business (All judgements considered)
DCIT vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16038 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
S. 148: A notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO before the assessee files a return of income has no meaning. If no fresh notice is issued after the assessee files a return, the AO has no jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order and the same has to be quashed
Sudhir Menon vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15966 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 143(2), 148
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The ITAT is an adjudicator and not an investigator. It has to rely upon the investigation / enquiry conducted by the AO. The Dept cannot fault the ITAT's order and seek a recall on the ground that an order of SEBI, though available, was not produced before the ITAT at the hearing. The negligence or laches lies with the Dept and for such negligence or laches, the order of the ITAT cannot be termed as erroneous u/s 254(2)
ITO vs. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15965 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 254(2)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s. 194H applicable on discounts given on sale of Set Top Boxes and recharge vouchers.
Tata Sky Limited Vs Asst. CIT (TDS)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15959 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194H
-
S. 271C & 206AA Penalty: The assessee has made out a prima facie case that the outcome of the appeal before the ITAT will directly impact the penalty proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. The Revenue authorities are accordingly restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal (Wander 44 Taxman.com 103 (Bom) & GE India Technology 46 Taxmann.com 374 (Guj) followed)
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15909 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 271C, 206AA
-
S. 80-IC: Law on whether "assembly" constitutes "manufacture" explained in the context of several judgements. Allegation of the Dept that manufacture is not possible as the assessee has less number of employees, no sophisticated machinery and less electricity consumption considered
ITO vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15908 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IC
-
ITAT - AO chose to adopt pick and choose strategy from assessee’s replies in a manner to ambush assessee despite all the material placed on record before him. Sec 69 addition for partner's profit share deleted.
Hrishikesh D. Pai Vs DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15849 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69
-
S. 263(1) obligates the CIT to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. While the CIT is entitled to consider a point which is not stated in the show-cause notice, he cannot pass the revision order unless the assessee is given the opportunity of being heard. Such an order is untenable in the eyes of law (Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) followed)
Ambuja Cements Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15795 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263(1)
-
ITAT - No addition of notional income u/s. 23 with respect to assessee-builder’s unsold flats lying vacant for AY 2009-10.
Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15694 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 23
-
S. 56(2)(viib), 68, 147 Bogus share capital/ premium: Entire law on whether alleged excessive premium charged for allottment of shares and alleged inability to prove genuineness of transaction can be assessed as unexplained cash credit explained in the light of High Court judgements
ACIT vs. Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15673 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 56(2)(viib), 68, 147
-
S. 92 Transfer Pricing: (i) Chapter 10 presupposes the existence of “income” and lays down machinery provision to compute ALP of such income. S. 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on income which is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. If no income has accrued to or received by the assessee u/s 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s 92 of the Act (ii) It is a jurisdictional requirement that the AO has to record satisfaction that there is “income” or potential of income. The recording of 'satisfaction' about the existence of an "international transaction" is also essential. This is only within the jurisdiction of the AO and the CIT(A) cannot substitute his satisfaction for that of the AO. Such substitution of satisfaction is impermissible in law as it amounts to curing a jurisdictional defect
Shilpa Shetty vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15633 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 92
-
S. 23(1)(c) vacancy allowance: The words 'property is let' does not mean 'property actually let out'. If property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property and the same would fall within the purview of s. 23 (1)(c) and be eligible for vacancy allowance. A reasonable approach should be taken on the assesse's attempts to let out and infallible proof should not be demanded
Sachin R. Tendulkar vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15605 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · S. 23(1)(c)
-
S. 2(42A)/45: The law laid down in Suraj Lamps & Industries 340 ITR 1 (SC) that transfer of immovable property is effective only on registration of conveyance deed is not applicable for computing the holding period of property. Holding period should be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter and not from the date of the conveyance deed (Rasiklal M. Parikh vs. ACIT 393 ITR 536 (Bom) distinguished)
Sanjaykumar Footermal Jain vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15545 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(42A), 45
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.