-
If assessee has interest free funds which far exceed the advance given, then there cannot be any presumption that such advance has been given only out of such interest bearing funds.
NARESH KUMAR C/O ANKIT GUPTA VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26892 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of any contrary material brought to notice of this tribunal, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is upheld.
BRIJ RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-5 (2)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26891 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90698&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
-
Since Assessee has explained a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
MOHIT ANAND VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-1 (3), UTTAR PRADESH
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26882 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90648&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the income of the assessee is estimated by G.P rate no further addition can be made on account of expenditure which is part of the trading account.
SMT. UMA KESARWANI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (5) ALLAHABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26881 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90650&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioners are having reasonable cause for such failure for payment of the TDS amount and therefore, the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the issue afresh.
M/S. KAJAH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAJI A. ABDUL RAHIMAN SAHIB, HAJI ABDUL SALAM, HAJI A. ABDUL RASHEED, HAJI A. ABDU AZEES, HAJI A. ABDUL RAWUF, 7. HAJI A. ABDUL RAFEEQ VERSUS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MADURAI.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26880 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO is not empowered to substitute the agreed consideration by Fair Market Value except in situations envisaged u/s 50C of the Act.
AMIT VISHNU PASHANKAR, VISHNU PUNDALIK PASHANKAR, MAHESH VISHNU PASHANKAR VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2, SANGLI., THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3, PUNE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26877 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90622&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioners are at liberty to issue suitable instructions to R2 in regard to their bank accounts.
S. PADMAPRIYA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2 (5) , CHENNAI., THE BRANCH MANAGER
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26876 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85104&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since section 3 of the DTVSV Act has become applicable, therefore the amount payable by the Petitioner will be equivalent to 50% of the disputed tax.
COOPERATIVE RABOBANK UA, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , MUMBAI AND UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26875 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The reason of the learned Single Judge bringing the case under the second proviso is perfectly in order. Therefore, the order made by learned Single Judge is upheld
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) , CHENNAI VERSUS HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM WORKERS' WELFARE CENTRE (CITU) , THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26874 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85110&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Being govt. employee, the assessee is not permitted to enter in chit fund.
KISHAN KOTHWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26871 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90574&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the CBDT Circular No. 1/2005 was in the context of section 10B, the ratio of the circular equally applies to Section 10A.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) VERSUS ZENTEST LABS
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26870 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90575&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the stamp duty valuation is less than the sale consideration under the sale deed and hence no addition u/s 50C is required to be made as per proviso to Section 50C of the Act.
DHARMENDRA B. PATEL VERSUS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (3) , SURAT.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26869 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The addition made by revenue authorities in the given case is without any basis and keeping aside the sound principles of tax jurisprudence, the same cannot be held as sustainable.
SRI BUDHUVIR EDUCATIONAL TRUST VERSUS DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, DIST-SUNDARGARH
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26868 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90579&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy - The mixed question of fact and law is to be decided with reference to the original documents and evidences by the appellate authority.
M/S. STAR AVIATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE – VI (4) , CHENNAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26808 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the Income Tax Act does not anywhere contemplate issuance of a show cause notice prior to finalisation of scrutiny assessments, as a matter of procedure and good office, the Assessing Authority is expected to crystalise the issues arising from the return of income filed by an assessee, the questionnaires issued under Section 142(1) and notices under Section 143(2) and responses thereto, issue a show cause notice setting out the issues, solicit the response of the assessee and pass orders only thereafter, after hearing the assessee concerned.
ESHAKTI. COM PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2 (1) , CHENNAI, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26807 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85024&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 245 Adjustment of Refund: The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act. It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter. Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant (All imp judgements on s. 245 referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26540 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 245
-
Article 226/ s. 147: (i) A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. (ii) A s. 148 notice & s. 147 reassessment order passed against an amalgamated (non-existing) company is without jurisdiction. The defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B (All imp judgements referred)
Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26539 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
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)
-
The DTVSV Act, 2020 is an Act to provide for resolution of disputed tax and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The emphasis is on disputed tax and not on disputed income. From a plain reading of the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and the Rules set out above, it emerges that the Designated Authority would have to issue Form 3 as referred to in section 5(1) specifying the amount payable in accordance with section 3 of the DTVSV Act. In the case of the declarant who is an eligible appellant not falling under section 4(6) nor within the exceptions in section 9 of the DTVSV Act, 2020, which fact appears to be undisputed
Sadruddin Tejani vs. ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26531 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.