-
If the intentions were to deal on a systematic and repetitive manner, then no businessmen will lock its funds for three years for his trading activities. Assessee, after selling these flats has not acquired any additional flats by re-investing the sale proceeds of these sold flats. Also the fact remains that the above assets are appearing under investments in the balance sheet of the assessee.
HARESH KHIAMAL NANWANI VERSUS ACIT-17 (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20712 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81056&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had not benefitted within the meaning of Sec.41(1) of the Act receipt of the said payment from the assessee prematurely can in no way be construed or characterized as a remission or cessation of the liability of the assessee towards the State Government.
Caprihans India Ltd Vs Dy. CIT Central Circl-36
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20711 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the present case, the preference shares were non-convertible, non-cumulative and redeemable, thus the company had a liability to pay the above preference share capital to the preference shareholders before anything was paid to equity shareholders. Since Rule 11UA mandated to to include preference share capital in total liability of the company and to exclude only Paid up Value of equity share capital issued and free reserve.
Neelu Analjit Singh Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20710 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee placed before us Form 26A issued by accountant of assessee, in respect of payment made by assessee to these alleged nine doctors. As additional evidence in respect of these nine doctors which in our considered opinion, deserves to be admitted and requires due verification also. In our opinion, Ld.AO will have to verify all these details to ascertain true facts.
M/S SHIVA & SHIVA ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20709 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80979&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, there is no dispute that the assessee has filed the return of income on 28.11.2014 and the time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2015. As per the settled law, the AO is not permitted to make the addition u/s 153A in the completed assessments without the support of incriminating material. In the instant case, there was no incriminating material found and the assessee has filed the return of income claiming deduction u/s 80IA.
SRI SURESH KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 VISAKHAPATNAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20708 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81021&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A.O. merely initiated penalty proceedings separately for violation of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act. He did not record any satisfaction under section 271D of the I.T. Act before initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271D of the I.T. Act. Further, the explanation of assessee on merit clearly suggest that assessee had a "reasonable cause" for violation to comply with the provisions of Law because no cash given directly to assessee but deposited at Shilong Branch over which assessee did not have any control.
VIRAL CHETANKUMAR PATEL VERSUS THE ADD. CIT, GANDHINGAR RANGE, GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20707 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81022&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has followed the due procedure of law and also had specific information in his possession, received from the DIT(Inv.) which indicated that certain amounts had been received in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain who were entry operators.
M/S RAM DEV RICE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE, KARNAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20706 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81023&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provision of section 50C (2) which specifically provides that where reference is made by the AO to Valuation Officer the provisions of section 16A (2), (3), (4) (5) of Wealth Tax Act would apply in the same manner as they apply to valuation referred under Wealth Tax Act. The Rule 3 of Schedule III of Wealth Tax Rules specifically provide for method of valuation of rented building as Rent Capitalization Method.
SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (3) AMRITSAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20705 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81031&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of a certificate of deduction of tax at source at a lower rate or nil rate, a payer-whose liability it is to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act, is likely to incur a risk of being declared a defaulter. However, if a certificate under Section 197 of the Act is in operation, such a consequence would not arise. At the same time, the certificate under Section 197 of the Act for deduction of tax at lower rate or nil rate, also benefits the Assessee, who would be entitled to receive full payment from the payer without deduction.
NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (2) (2) , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20704 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81727&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 139(5)/ 170: The consequence of amalgamation is that the amalgamating companies lose their separate identity and cease to exist. The successor is obliged u/s 170 to file a revised return to reflect the effect of the amalgamation. The fact that the revised return is filed after the due date specified in s. 139(5) is irrelevant as the scheme approved by the NCLT provides for it. The assessee is also not required to seek condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) (Dalmia Power 418 ITR 242 (Mad) reversed)
Dalmia Power Limited vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20703 (SC) · Sections 139(5), 170
-
S. 147 Reopening for taxing bogus share application money: One is known by the company one keeps. As the investors have dubious character & are known to have engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries., the genuineness of their transactions with the assessee has come under serious cloud, giving rise to reasonable belief in the mind of the AO that the assessee may have indulged in a dubious transaction to launder its undisclosed income. The fact that the assessee produced evidence during assessment is neither here nor there (NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161 (SC) followed). Costs of Rs. 2L imposed on assessee for wasting Court's time
RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20702 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
-
Income from overseas branch is taxable in the country where the branch is established. The profits of overseas branch are taxable in India, thus accepting assessee's plea. These two divergent views by two different benches of the Tribunal has made the issue debatable. The jurisdictional HC has admitted substantial question of law on the issue of place of taxability of profits earned by the overseas. It is a trait law that where the issue is debatable no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, and thus deletes the penalty levied by the Department.
Johnson & Johnson Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20701 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Where the assessee society is having more than 15% Associated Members, there is a violation of the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and in that situation, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P.
Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20700 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80P
-
Technical service payments made by assessee-company to a resident/national of South Korea during AY 2015-16, shall not be taxable in India in view of Article 15 of the India-Korea DTAA on Independent Personal Services. There is absent fixed base in India. Therefore TDS u/s. 195 is inapplicable.
J.Korin Spinning Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20699 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Keeping in mind learned CIT(A)'s finding that assessee has indulged in dubious transaction of claiming forfeiture, it would show that the amount involved has been correctly reduced from the value of assets of the assesse.
The Supreme Industries Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the present case, some undisclosed business income was admitted to have been earned (Rs.25L) and simultaneously some undisclosed expenditure (Rs.26L) was also incurred which had a direct relation with earning the income. Once this is the position, we fail to appreciate as to how any addition other than Rs.1.00 lakh on this score can be made there is no reason for making or sustaining any addition over and above this amount.
Travelline International Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20697 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
There being no change in the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration, there is no justification of the AO in imputing interest income on the debit balance of the said partner and subjecting the same to tax in the hands of the assesse.
India Housing Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20696 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Merely because the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, by treating the flat as a commercial property, assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be disallowed if the assessee fulfills the conditions of section 54 of the Act. Merely because the assessee claimed a deduction under the wrong provision, his claim cannot be disallowed if it is allowable under a different provision , thus directs AO to allow assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54.
Satish S. Prabhu Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20695 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54
-
It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants.
P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc Vs The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20694 (SC)
-
There is no requirement of transfer of any capital asset being shares only requirement is that a shareholder receives a consideration from a company for purchase of its own shares. This judgment is an authority regarding applicability of section 46A in respect of receipt by shareholder on account of buy back of shares from the concerned company but there was no argument or decision about applicability of section 47 (iv) of I T Act.
M/s. Acciona Wind Energy Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20693 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 47(iv)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.