-
Contingencies for filing appeal before CIT(A) as listed in clause (ii) and (iii) of Sec 246A arise out of assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144 but the contingency in Sec 246A(i) is a standalone postulate and is not dependant purely on the assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144.
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20504 (SC) · Section 115QA
-
Though the return was filed, there was nothing done by the Department on the same especially since six years had elapsed by the time the return was filed. It cannot be said that the income that was added on to the assessee had already suffered capital gains tax at the hands of the mother.
Harris Joseph Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax II
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20501 (SC)
-
Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20478 (SC)
-
The scheme of Section 11A of the Act does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie, be: (a) a preliminary determination that the process or activity undertaken in the matter amounts to manufacture; and (b) before arriving at such preliminary determination, any hearing to the concerned person is contemplated.
KRISHNA WAX (P)LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20470 (SC)
-
Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s).
Senior Bhosale Estate Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20468 (SC)
-
Sec 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions.
Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20433 (SC)
-
HC had firmly rejected petitioner's plea of hostile discrimination as the provision is applicable only to resident taxpayers and it does not apply to domestic companies and non-residents and this HC order is being held.
RAJAN BHATIA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20407 (SC)
-
Doctrine of mutuality: A club registered as a 'company' u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place. Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members. The ratio decidendi in Bacha F. Guzdar 27 ITR 1 does not apply to such clubs. When a club supplies goods to its members, there is no "sale" and sales-tax cannot be levied (Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC), Venkatesh Premises Coop Soc 402 ITR 670 (SC) & other imp judgements referred)
State Of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20374 (SC) · Section 25
-
Recall of ex-parte order: A 'power of attorney holder' is an 'agent' and 'Principal Officer' u/s 2(35). If a CA is granted a POA, service upon him of a notice is valid. If a notice is duly served upon the litigant through its authorized representative, and it was provided sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and contest the matter but the litigant choses to let the matter proceed exparte, the order cannot be recalled
PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20373 (SC) · Section 2(35)
-
Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B.
Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20346 (SC) · Section 36(1) (iii)
-
In the present case, there is no possibility of cascading effect nor the issue is involved in group of matters, as such.
S.C.Naregal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20337 (SC)
-
The Applicant Company was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The Applicant - Company chose to let the matter proceed exparte. The assessee failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for recall of the judgment.
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20319 (SC) · Section 68
-
Million dollar circumstance considered by the AO and CIT(A) is that if the existing cash balance has been used for purchasing gold bars, obviously the available cash balance would have decreased, while it has not so decreased, and thus the only possible conclusion is that the gold were purchased from the amounts available with the assessee from undisclosed source, obviously beyond the amount shown in the cash book to be lying with the assesse.
MOTILAL KHATRI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20318 (SC) · Section 69
-
The disclosure is attributed to assessee's parent company in the proceedings in USA and not by the assessee as such, further notes that it was not Revenue's contention that the amounts referred to in the disclosure had been received in the accounts of the assessee or spent by the assessee on instructions so as to be treated as undisclosed income.
Goodyear India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20297 (SC)
-
The change of address in the database of PAN is must, in case of change in the name of the company and/or any change in the registered office or the corporate office the assessee is also required to make an application for change of address in the departmental database of PAN, which in the present case the assessee has failed to do so.
IVen Interactive Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20296 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
Black Money Act: It is not correct to say that while exercising powers under Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015. The penal provisions u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of S. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon
UOI vs. Gautam Khaitan
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20293 (SC)
-
We have perused the two letters which had weighed with the High Court. Our analysis of the said letters is that, they had been in refutal of the allegations contained in the news items which were published around that time, when the communication was sent by the assessee to the Department with an explanation and a without-prejudice offer.
M/S GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20288 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80228&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address and/or change in the name of the assessee, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee, more particularly when the return has been filed under EModule scheme.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20287 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80233&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 143(2): Mere mentioning of new address in the return of income is not enough. If change of address is not specifically intimated to the AO, he is justified in sending the notice at the address mentioned in PAN database. If the notice is sent within the period prescribed in s. 143(2), actual service of the notice upon the assessee is immaterial
PCIT vs. IVen Interactive Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20285 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
This information is not something new to the AO. There is nothing in the reasons recorded by the AO to suggest that, such investment is bogus. AO's requirement of verifying the genuineness of the investor and of further investigation would fall within the realm of fishing enquiries, which is wholly impermissible in law in the context of reopening of the assessment.
NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(2)(2) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20264 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.