-
PCIT cannot exercise the power of revision to look into any other issue which the AO himself could not look.
Smt. Padmavathi Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20571 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 263
-
The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner.
Kingston Educational Trust Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20570 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 143(1)
-
We uphold the conclusion reached by the High Court that the amount received in the hands of appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. Hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.
H.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20563 (SC)
-
Since the assessee had failed to show that it had incurred any expenditure in earning interest income, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted.
The Malleshwaram Association Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20562 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that as per the pre-amended provision of Sec.43CA, in case the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration was less than 15%, then the same was to be ignored and no addition on the said count was called for in the hands of the assessee.
Welfare Properties P. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20555 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA
-
Pendency of the assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to institution of a criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 276(1) or Section 277 of the Act.
Sri D.K.Shivakumar Vs Deputy Director Income Tax (Inv)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20554 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Though the liabilities had ceased to exist as far as the assessee was concerned, the trade creditors had not waived their rights to receive it and the partners were now liable to pay such amount.
M/s Dharamtar Motor Services Petroleum Product Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20547 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 68, 41(1)
-
The PCIT was right in concluding that neither of the Petitioners had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts.
Ankush Jain Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20546 (SC)
-
Static vs. Ambulatory interpretation of DTAAs: Entire law on whether the retrospective amendments to the definition of "royalty" in s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act can have bearing on the interpretation of the same term in the DTAAs explained with reference to the doctrine of "treaty override" and the Vienna Convention (Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) explained)
ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20545 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
Law on taxation under DTAAs of "transparent entities" & "representative assesseess" explained: When an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection (Linklaters LLP 9 ITR (Trib) 217 (Mum) followed)
ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not valid if (i) there is no record of satisfaction by the AO that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee or (ii) If the notice is issued in the printed form and the inapplicable portions are not struck off (Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom) & New Era Sova Mine [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] followed, Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished).
PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20543 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Appeal u/s 246A reg denial of liability to pay buy-back tax u/s 115QA: The expression “denies his liability to be assessed” in s. 246A takes within its fold every case where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act. It is not confined to the liability to be assessed u/s 143(3) but applies also to the liability to pay tax u/s 115QA. If there is adequate appellate remedy, a Writ Petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained (Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC) & Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) followed)
Genpact India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20542 (SC) · Sections 246A, 115QA
-
The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is beyond doubt that the income in question has actually accrued to the taxable entities on the Netherlands, which, according to the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, is sine qua non for tax treaty protection. It would thus appear that the treaty protection has indeed been wrongly declined to the assesse.
ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The liability to pay the revised price had accrued during the relevant A.Ys when GAIL had intimated the likely revision of the price and only date of the payment thereof was uncertain and therefore, the provision has to be allowed as per the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assesse. There is an implicit obligation of the assessee to pay the revised price, the liability of the assessee to pay at the revised price is an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability as held by the Revenue.
A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20537 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 37
-
Annual listing fees paid to stock exchange is an admissible business deductible expenditure.
DCIT Vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20536 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Depreciation was allowable both on the excess amount paid towards goodwill and non compete agreement.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income- tax (OSD) Vs M/s.Dorma India Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20535 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Aforesaid explanation of the assessee safely falls within the sweep of a plausible explanation, which had not been dislodged or disproved by the revenue till date, therefore, he could not have justifiably been saddled with levy of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) in respect of the said amount and accordingly deletes the penalty levied .
Shabbir E. Boxwala Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20534 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The transaction of subscription to the chits is independent of the earlier transaction of loans borrowed and there is nothing on record to show that both the transactions are interconnected.
The Assistant Director of Income Tax Vs M/s. Sree Gokulam Educational and Medical Trust
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20533 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Sections 11, 11(5)
-
Sec.271AAB(2) specifically excludes the application of Sec.271(c).
Shri Sunil Ravindranath Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20532 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Sections 271AAB, 271(1)(c)
-
Revision of order u/s 263 by the CIT in March 2017 as regards the issue of allowability of Accountants rick policy premium was barred by limitation.
M/S. PRINCE WATER HOUSE Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-8, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20531 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 263
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.