-
Assessee has demonstrated from the records that all the requisite details were submitted to the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee in commodity trading activity. In our view, merely because the brokers had not appeared in response to the summons sent by the Assessing Officer that itself cannot be the sole ground to reject the entire evidence produced by the assessee.
M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VERSUS M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20887 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81458&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penal provisions must be strictly construed and only on satisfaction of conditions specified therein, the penalty can be levied. In the instant case, the assessee has not been found to be recipient of salary income during the course of search. The assessee is an individual deriving salary and interest income and not required to maintain books of accounts.
SH. YASH BHATIA VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20886 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81460&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Value of the assets taken over by the company should be considered as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains under the Act. In this case, the full value of consideration is ₹ 2,70,69,200/-. This is also, the cost of acquisition of assets. As the cost of acquisition and the full value of consideration received on sale are the same figure, no capital gains has accrued or was received by the assessee.
RAVI JALAN VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20885 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81462&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is because the time permitted under the statute for selecting the case under scrutiny was up to 30 September 2012 but there was no notice issued for the scrutiny assessment. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order in the case of Krishna Kumar Singhania Vs. DCIT wherein unless there was no any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to concluded year 2009-10.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4) AHMEDABAD VERSUS INDIA RETAI L PRODUCT PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20884 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81463&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing but the assessee has not produced any evidences before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Assessing Officer to corroborate those statements that the assessee company was engaged in providing only accommodation entries. The assessee-company has not provided any affidavits from the beneficiary companies to support its claim of being engaged in providing accommodation entries.
ITO, WARD-14 (4), NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. KULDEEP TEXTILES (P.) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20883 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the applicant is directed to abide by the provisions of Sec.139AA and subsequently the petition challenging the validity of Aadhar Act succeeds, it would not be possible to turn the clock back as the applicant would be required to provide all the necessary information for obtaining an Aadhaar card and the claim of privacy of the applicant would be lost for all times to come.
Bandish Saurabh Soparkar Vs Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20882 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Even though the assessee is an eligible assessee, there is no variation to the international transactions. Therefore, there cannot be any prejudice to the interests of the assesse, passing of the draft assessment order itself is not warranted
Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20881 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The action of the JCIT under s.153D of the Act is to be regarded as perfunctory and mechanical in subversion of the spirit of Section 153D of the Act. Such symbolic approval is unfounded in law. As a corollary, in the absence of any valid approval under s.153D of the Act, the respective assessment orders giving cause of action in the form of captioned appeals requires to be quashed on this score also.
M/S. RAJAT MINERALS PVT. LTD. C/O SRI S.K. PODDAR, M/S. K.D.S. CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1, RANCHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20880 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81438&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act, AO has not recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 14A(2) that the working given by the assessee is not correct. It is incumbent upon the AO to record satisfaction as to the working given by the assessee that no expenses have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A is not sustainable, hence ordered to be deleted.
M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20879 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There has been only a change in name of the entity and besides that, there is no change in the corporate identity of the assessee company. It is therefore not a case where the assessee company ceases to exist and/or amalgamated with any other existing/new entity. Therefore, it is not a case where the notice u/s 148 has been issued and assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 147 has been completed in the name of non- existent entity.
M/S SHREE SILICA PRODUCT PVT. LTD. (NOW M/S RAJSHREE ALLOYS INDIA LTD.) (FORMERLY BADAYA ISPAT LTD.) VERSUS ITO, WARD-4 (1), JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20878 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81435&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that survey action u/s.133A was carried out at the office premises of Anupam Group wherein during the course seven small pocket diaries were recovered from the premises. And the same were confronted by recording statement of u/s.132(4) wherein it was admitted that these represents net profit from on money receipts or different purchases of the group which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts and was net earnings after all expenses.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT. VERSUS ANUPAM ORGANISER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20877 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81434&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As long as the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accrued to the assessee on the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset) is not in excess of five percent, then such difference is to be ignored and the profits and gains on transfer of the asset has to be worked out on the basis of the actual consideration received or accruing to the assessee.
WELFARE PROPERTIES P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT-13 (3) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20876 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81432&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even if the purchases are found to be bogus, however, the entire purchases cannot be added if the sales are not doubted or disputed. In such circumstances, the addition can be made by applying the gross profit rate of normal purchases. Thus, in our considered opinion, the decision of the Assessing Officer in making addition applying the profit rate is in consonance with various judicial precedents available on the issue.
NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGINEERING CO. P. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE–5, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20875 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Such transaction by depositing cash directly in the bank account of the beneficiary is not routed through any clearing house nor is the money send through electronic mode and therefore such a transaction in my considered opinion cannot be covered by Rule 6DD(c)(v).
Ajai Kumar Singh Khaldelial Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20874 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 40A(3)
-
Such an undue haste in recovery of the disputed demands, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited for the disposal of the stay petition.
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20873 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When the assessee is a recognized start-up company having filed declaration in Form 2, the provisions of Sec.56(2)(viib) shall not be made applicable.
M/s. Phasorz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20872 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The powers of the Tribunal to grant stay on collection/ recovery of demands, during the pendency of appeal, cannot be exercised in a routine manner simply on the basis of an assessment of prima facie merits in the appeal, nonetheless, grants out of turn hearing and fixes the matter for February 24th.
Kersiwood Holdings Limited Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20871 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Authorities below have not dissected the various investments vis-à-vis dividend income received by the assessee and the matter need to be remanded back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after considering and analyzing various investments made by the assessee vis-a-vis dividend income received which was claimed as an exempt income.
M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. VERSUS THE ADDL. CIT, CORPORATE RANGE, COIMBATORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20870 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81422&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the payments were made for business purpose and the Revenues earned and declared by the assessee show the proportion of benefit, because the assessee travelled from losses to profit after their collaboration with the Arkadin SA, France.
DCIT, CIRCLE- 3 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS ARKADIN CONFER INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20869 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81424&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee gifted certain Fixed Deposit receipts and other amounts to his wife not only in this year but also in the earlier years. Interest income arising from such FDRs amounting to Rs 7,21,547/- in addition to Venture capital income of Rs 1,11,252/- accruing to wife from such gifts has been religiously clubbed by the assessee in his hands and offered for taxation. Two possible situations of utilization of the assets transferred by husband to wife triggering the clubbing provisions.
UDAY GOPAL BHASKARWAR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20868 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81425&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.