-
We find that the action u/s 147 was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed u/s 143(3) earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
NAWEEN TRANSPORT COMPANY VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE -2, HAZARIBAGH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20867 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81426&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In both these definitions as defined by sec.2(d-2) of 1959 Act and Sec. 2(e) of 1997 Act the word ‘co-operative’ is employed not as an adjective but as a noun; the definition of other relative concepts in the dictionary clauses of these Acts strengthens this view. This apart, sec.7 of the 1997 Act provides that the entity registered as a ‘co-operative’ shall be a body corporate, notwithstanding the conspicuous absence of the word ‘society’ as a postfix; sec.9 of the 1959 Act makes the entity once registered u/s.8 thereof a body corporate.
M/S. SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO. OPERATIVE LTD. VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVNUE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20866 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81883&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It seems that the issue pertaining to the validity of the order under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 was not raised by the assesseee in his application and his only grievance was with regard to the re-assessment order.
AJAI KUMAR SINGH KHALDELIAL VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20865 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81884&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
While dealing with an application for condonation of delay, the authority must satisfy itself with regard to the genuineness of the claim. However, the same does not mean that the authority should examine the merits of the claim closely and come to the conclusion as it amounts to prejudging the case.
Vasudev Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20864 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 119
-
The issue as regards allowability of depreciation on goodwill is no more res integra. Assessee's depreciation claim on the excess of payment over net assets, capitalised as goodwill in the books of accounts is found to be in order.
Tam Media Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20863 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
AO sought to value shares as on 31.03.12 subsequent to the allotment of shares at premium of Rs. 400 as on 31.03.12, holds the same to be not permissible. Such method of computation is not laid down under any provisions of the Act. Thus the same is not in accordance with law.
Shri Ravi Jalan Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20862 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
Arm’s length price in the case of loans advanced to AE would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. The action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct d the AO erred in adopting the India bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australia currency as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australia Dollar.
RUSSELL CREDIT LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CRICLE-8/ADDL. CIT RANGE-8, KOLKAKTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20861 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81414&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons to affirm both the lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s share capital in question as unexplained cash credits liable to be added u/s.68 of the Act in entirety. Their lordships have made it clear that when this tribunal fully agrees with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it need not record separate reasons than those in the lower appellate discussion. The assessee fails in its solitary grievance therefore.
OVERTOP NINCOM PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7 (2), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20860 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81415&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Arm’s length price in the case of loans advanced to AE would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. The action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct d the AO erred in adopting the India bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australia currency as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australia Dollar.
NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20859 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81416&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sources of income of the assessee are agriculture and also rental income from HUF properties situated at Nalgonda and Suryapet. Though he mentioned about a petrol bunk, since according to the assessee, the petrol bunk business commenced only in 2012, the income from the petrol bunk business cannot be said to be a source of income for the assessee to deposit in the Bank Accounts for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
BEERAVALLI VENKAT SAI RAM REDDY VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20858 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81872&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has failed to produce any material to authenticate his contentions that the cash deposits in his account were on account of the sales being made by him from the Kirana business. In absence of any purchase bill to justify that the deposits in the bank account were sale receipts, the tax authorities cannot be faulted for making the addition of the unexplained cash entries in the bank account.
SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20857 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81873&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Satisfaction arrived at by the authority satisfies all the requirements of law as contemplated under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and explained by judicial pronouncements in that regard.
DEEPAK GUPTA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20856 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81874&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the assessee was prohibited from applying for a new PAN where a PAN had already been issued to it, the fact that such a new PAN had been applied and thereafter issued, the new PAN and filing of return of income doesn't confer any jurisdiction to the AO over such matter with such new PAN and the AO with earlier PAN continued to exercise jurisdiction over the assessee company.
Shree Silica Product Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20855 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
There remains no confusion to the extent that the income declared in earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transactions of subsequent year provided there is a nexus between the income declared and the transaction of the subsequent assessment year.
Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20854 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
AO is the final authority to release the amount subject to the conditions referred to therein. The proceedings before the said authority are pending adjudication. Further, Section 132B of the Act relates to procedure for applications and release of assets seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act, and the matter is pending before the concerned assessing officer.
SRI VENKATA PAVANI JEWELLERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20853 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81844&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the amount paid by the petitioner’s employer alone has been refunded back without interest vide 1st mentioned impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5.10.2012. There is however no discussion as to why the interest under Section 244A was not payable to the petitioner.
P.R. GANAPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – II (5)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20852 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81845&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 of IT Act and the petitioner was granted 30 days time for filing its return. If the petitioner was oversure that it was not a case of intentional escape of taxable income on nondisclosure, the petitioner would have satisfied the Assessing Authority by way of filing its return in compliance with the impugned notice but, in the present case, except filing return, the petitioner had taken all other course such as filing of objection and invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
SRI. NAVAL KISHORE KHAITAN, VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20851 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Pursuant to interim order passed by this court, the applicant has already filed the return of income for AY 2017-18, however, during the pendency of this petition, the validity of section 139AA of the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttuswamy's case. The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 139AA of the Act must therefore, necessarily fail.
BANDISH SAURABH SOPARKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20850 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in Rajkot District Co-op. Bank Ltd. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have to be for the remaining period of maturity.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO-OP BANK LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20849 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81850&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer that the discount allowed to the distributors by the Respondent – assessee company is on account of principal to principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20848 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81855&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.