-
Since the CIT(A) did not jurisdiction to replace the full sale consideration disclosed by the assessee with FMV, there was no need to examine the justification of valuation report in support of sale consideration shown by the assessee vis-à-vis FMV determined by the CIT(A). The assessee is entitled for claim of capital loss suffered by it on sale of shares amounting to Rs.5,17,82,554/-.
DCIT Vs Shreno Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20692 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The undisputed facts are that the assessee, Shri Bhura Ram had expired on 26.11.2008 as per death certificate dated 11.02.2009 issued by Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were recorded on 15.03.2013 and thereafter the notice u/s 148 was issued in the name of assessee on 20.03.2013.
LATE SHRI BHURA RAM VERSUS THE ITO WARD 7 (2), JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20691 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80960&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case in hand, the fair market value of the asset shall be taken as the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authority as provided u/s 50C of the Act being full value consideration and therefore, for the purpose of computing the capital gains the said amount of ₹ 1,08,25,150/- would be deemed to be full value consideration which is the actual sale consideration. Therefore, there will be no change in the capital gains computed and declared by the assessee even after applying the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act.
SHRI SUBHASH CHAND KHANDELWAL VERSUS THE PR. CIT ALWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20690 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80962&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Genuineness of the payment of the wages to the temporary staff cannot be suspected as it was subject to professional tax and Provident fund. Once the genuineness of the expenses is established, then in our considered view the AO cannot occupy the armchair of the assessee and direct it to make the payment of wages at particular rate. As such it was the wisdom of the assessee for making the payment of the wages at the particular rate which cannot be questioned by the AO.
M/S. RADIANT HITECH ENGG. PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 BARODA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20689 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80964&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the payment of EDC was not made out of any statutory and contractual liability to HUDA with whom the assessee has no privity of contract. Secondly, the assessee has reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee company. Thirdly it is not the case of the Revenue authorities that the assessee has intentionally avoided the deduction of TDS by bringing on record contumacious conduct of the assessee.
M/S. SANTUR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, RANGE 77, NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20688 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The date of search and seizure operation is 20.11.2009, it can be safely concluded that since no notice was issued and served upon the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act, assessment is complete. In our considered opinion, the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the assessee company, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be considered as incriminating material.
M/S HBN INSURANCE AGENCIES VERSUS THE A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20687 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80969&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Partnership deed dated 01.05.2008 at clause 8 contains provision for interest on capital @ 12% per annum and clause 17 provides for remuneration to whole time working partners and method of computation of remuneration is also provided. Vide supplementary deed dated 01.04.2010, manner of paying remuneration to whole time working partners have been revised.
M/S MAYASHEEL CONSTRUCTION C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE - 1 GHAZIABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20686 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80970&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Zylog is a recent judgment pronounced on 23.04.2019 and we are bound by decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court affirming ratio of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Synopsis which was decided in favour of Revenue.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20685 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Sec. 28(iv) can only be invoked in case of any income arising from business or profession.
Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd and Shri Sanjay Chandra Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20684 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 28(iv)
-
If at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.
University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20683 (SC)
-
Condonation of delay of 916 days: While a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay & the consideration does not depend on the status of the party, even so the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, routine explanation is not enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation (Mst Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107 distinguished)
University of Delhi vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20682 (SC)
-
Effect of dismissal of SLP: It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger
P. Singaravelan vs. District Collector
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20681 (SC)
-
There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury.
Universal Cables Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20675 (SC) · Section 244A
-
S. 244A: Interest on refund is compensation for unauthorized retention of money by the Department. When the collection is illegal & amount is refunded, it should carry interest in the matter of course. There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury. The Department is directed to pay interest as prescribed u/s 244-A at the earliest (UOI vs. Tata Chemicals 363 ITR 658 (SC) followed)
Universal Cables Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20664 (SC) · Section 244A
-
S. 147 reopening for bogus purchases & accommodation entries: The omission of the AO to make an assertion in the reasons that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment is sufficient to set aside the reassessment notice. Also, a notice issued on change of opinion is bad
Usha Exports vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20663 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 68/ 69C: In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition can be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of lower GP declared by the assessee in respect of bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases
Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20662 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 69
-
If for any reason, the assessee fails to appear before the CIT(Appeals) after receipt of notice of hearing, it is open to the CIT(Appeals) to dispose the appeal on merit after re-appreciating the material available on record, including the assessment record.
ETA Star Tech City Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20661 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In case if the giving effect order has already been passed by the AO, even then the doors of the assessee are left open that these items can be adjudicated on merits even in appellate proceedings.
L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20660 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Imposing penalty u/s. 272A(2)(K) of the Act was passed on 05.12.2013 making the penalty order null and void as it was passed after insertion of the second proviso to section 272A of the Act.
Blue Star Construction Co Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Tax TDS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20659 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 272A(2)(k)
-
Assessee is directed to raise its grievance before the appellate forum in case the assessee felt that there has been an infraction of the procedure, or the principles of natural justice in the matter of framing of the reassessment order.
M/S ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LTD Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20658 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.