-
Show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the I.T.Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to, whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
SRI. KASIMALI M. SAYYAD C/O. A RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND ASSOCIATES, GADAG VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 1, GADAG.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21081 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82004&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession.
M/S. KOVILAKAM HOTELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), TRICHUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21080 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82005&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is market practice that if there is any change in prices of handsets by competitors, change in life of mobile model, change in market demand of particular model which affects the sales, the distributor is protected by the Trade Price Protection.
Nokia India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21079 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, it would be appropriate and proper, in the interests of justice, for the writ petition to be heard on merits by the High Court, subject to payment of costs, which would be a condition precedent.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21078 (SC)
-
Tribunal has only the power and authority to see that the Revenue is acting according to the relevant circulars prescribing tax effect. If it is acting according to the circular, then the wisdom of the Revenue in taking a decision in terms of a particular clause in the circular is not to be questioned by the tribunal or the assesse.
ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs PRINCIPAL CIT- 5
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21077 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The process of converting raw Urad into Urad Dhal is a manufacturing activity undertaken by the Assessee and therefore, the Assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21076 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82212&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored the material which is required to be considered or has taken into consideration the material which is not relevant. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has arrived at the aforesaid finding of fact without any evidence. Therefore, the application of Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be said to be ignored by the Tribunal, as canvassed by the Revenue.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 3 VERSUS GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21075 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82213&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute with regard to the genesis of the case, particularly, as to the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, after having the same carved out from the erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also a fact conceded that there has to be only one Bar Council for the entire State as per the scheme of the Advocates Act and that the Bar Council of the undivided State was granted exemption in terms of Section 10(23A) of the Act of 1961.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C.G.), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS STATE BAR COUNCIL OF CHHATTISGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21074 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82214&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Process which the assessee had undertaken satisfies the test of manufacture to qualify for relief under Section 10B. Apart from cleaning and grading, the assessee had taken further processing, that what is purchased as raw material and what is exported as a product for export are totally different items. The process that the assessee had undertaken clearly points out the irreversible nature of the final end product from a raw material purchased.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD XIII (2), CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S DECO DE TREND
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21073 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82216&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the plain reading of the provisions of Section 68 of the IT Act, it does appear that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of Account maintained for any previous year and there is no proper explanation for such credit, the sum so credited can be charged to the income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the credits for the financial year 2006-07.
SHRI IVAN SINGH VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , GOA, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21072 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82218&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The respondent had sent a letter (Ex.PW-2/1) dated 12.09.2009, requesting for copies of the seized material. The noting on the said material indicates that the respondent was asked to pay a sum of ₹500/- to the PRO Income Tax Department, CR Building, New Delhi. Admittedly, the respondent had paid the said amount and communicated the same by a letter dated 18.08.2009 (Ex.PW-2/2).
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT) VERSUS V.K. GUPTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21071 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82219&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issuance of the LOC (Look Out Circular) was a serious matter as it contained full particulars of an individual which were sent throughout the world. In view the above said facts and circumstances, there is no justification in keeping the present LOC alive. The same is, therefore, directed to be recalled by the issuing authority.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21070 (HC-DELHI)
-
Merely by mentioning in the ledger account, it was Inter Corporate Deposit, the nature and colour of transaction would not changed to Inter Corporate Deposit, as it continues to be loan/advances. Hence required to be taxed for the purposes of deemed dividend.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhariya Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21069 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
S. 143(3): While E-Assessment without human interaction is laudable, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. Assessment proceeding under the changed scenario would require proper determination of facts by proper exchange and flow of correspondence between the assessee and the AO. The AO should at least call for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the assessee was unusual. Also, since the assessment proceedings no longer involve human interaction and is based on records alone, the assessment proceeding should have commenced much earlier so that before passing assessment order, the AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the assessee.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21068 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 143(3)
-
It is true that the assessee has claimed forex loss as revenue expenditure. It is equally true that once the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same, the assessee did not agitate the matter before the first appellant authority which is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 35, New Delhi dated 04.10.2017 wherein we can find grounds relating to foreign exchange loss of ₹ 21.22 crores was never pressed by the assessee and the same were dismissed.
M/S GLOBAL AUTO PARTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE – 12 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21067 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81950&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation to section 80IA(4) makes it clear that infrastructure facility means a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewage system or solid waste management system. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the assessee shall be entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) with respect to operating and maintaining of the water treatment system / water supply project. It is also clear that the assessee is not a developer but only operating and maintaining the water treatment system / water supply project.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17 (2), HYDERABAD. VERSUS M/S. WATERLIFE INDIA PVT. LTD. (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21066 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The requirement of supply of reasons u/s 148 of the Act when the assessee has specifically requested for the same after complying with the notice u/s 148 is sine qua non and goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the AO. In our opinion, the assessment framed without supplying reasons recorded u/s 148 deprives the assessee from filing the objections to the said reopening.
BABULAL H. JAIN VERSUS ITO-19 (1) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21065 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81955&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has assumed valid jurisdiction in this case by issue of proper notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act within the time contemplated by law. The original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act has not been treated as non est and the revised return is only for the purpose of certain errors and mistakes in the original return. In such circumstances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21064 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere disclosure of the identity of the investor in the return of income and the audited financial statements of the assessee as the source of share application money received, is not sufficient to constitute disclosure under the proviso to section 147.
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21063 (HC-DELHI)
-
Electronic assessment proceedings, though laudable, can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and statement of accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21062 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 69A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.