-
The loose parchas found during search, could lead to a presumption, but the Department cannot draw inference unless the entries made in the documents, so found are corroborated by evidence.
Ajay Gupta Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Meerut And Another
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20530 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 132(4A)
-
Even in case of limited scrutiny assessment, the AO is duty bound to make a prima facie inquiry as to whether there are any other items which requires examination and in the event, the potential escapement of income would have exceeded Rs.10 lakh, he ought to seek the permission of the CIT / DIT to convert a limited scrutiny assessment to a complete scrutiny assessment.
M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20527 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
To come within the ambit of export u/s. 10AA, the assessee must directly export the goods out of India. Since sales were not directly exported by the assessee out of India but were sold to other SEZ Units, therefore such sales could not be included in export turnover as per the definition provided u/s 10AA.
Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20526 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10AA
-
S. 92 Transfer Pricing: Even if an assessee is eligible for tax exemption at the rate of hundred percent under section 10A/10B of the Act, then also the arm’s length price on international transactions deserve to be determined under section 92C of the Act (all imp judgements referred)
Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20519 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 92
-
Merely because Public Sector Undertaking and Nationalised Banks are considered as State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it does not follow that the employees of such Public Sector Undertaking, Nationalised Banks or other institutions which are classified as State assume the status of Central Government and State Government employees.
KAMAL KUMAR KALIA & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20518 (HC-DELHI)
-
The LTCG booked by assessee were bogus & a major part of accommodation entries scheme.
SUMAN PODDAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20517 (SC)
-
The doctrine of impossibility becomes relevant here too. If the assessee is aware of the obligations of the Statute for paying AMT in the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee would not have taken of this project at all in the year 2007. Alternatively, the assessee would have followed a project completion method thereby he would be have planned to the taxation as per the then existing provisions of the Act.
M/s. Vikram Developers & Promoters Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20510 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Contingencies for filing appeal before CIT(A) as listed in clause (ii) and (iii) of Sec 246A arise out of assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144 but the contingency in Sec 246A(i) is a standalone postulate and is not dependant purely on the assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144.
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20504 (SC) · Section 115QA
-
In order to avoid the 'pitfall', law officers need to bring to the notice of their respective heads rulings which meet the criteria laid down by Lindley - 1.it must introduce a new principle, 2.modify an existing principle, 3.settle a disputed or uncertain issue, 4.or particularly instructive, and states that such a sharing of knowledge will definitely go a long way in improving the quality of adjudication.
City Union Bank Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20503 (HC-MADRAS)
-
No question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, rejected.
Honda Motors Co. Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation -3
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20502 (HC-DELHI)
-
Though the return was filed, there was nothing done by the Department on the same especially since six years had elapsed by the time the return was filed. It cannot be said that the income that was added on to the assessee had already suffered capital gains tax at the hands of the mother.
Harris Joseph Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax II
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20501 (SC)
-
We have no reason to assume, at this stage, that the Assessing Officer would not undertake the re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law.
Aditi Infrabuild & Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) & Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20500 (HC-DELHI)
-
Even if an assessee is eligible for tax exemption at the rate of hundred percent under section 10A/10B of the Act, then also the arm's length price on international transactions deserve to be determined under section 92C of the Act.
M/s. Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20499 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 10A, 92
-
Utilisation of share premium amount in paying off loans is irrelevant and there is no provision under Income tax act to tax the same even if there is a violation.
Exind Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20498 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee's method of Revenue recognition based on percentage of completion during the year is in consonance with the well recognised Accounting Standard - 7 issued by the ICAI.
Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt Ltd Vs The Addl.CIT.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20497 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the term export has been explained for the purpose of section 10AA of the I.T.Act, there is no necessity to refer to the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act, 2005.
M/s.Crossings International Distribution Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20496 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 10AA
-
On merits, the case of the assessee deserves to be allowed. Since, there is nothing placed on record by the Assessing Officer or tax authorities to justify the claim that the re - opening was warranted beyond the period of four years.
Shri Keshav Dutt Shreedhar Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20495 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 54
-
Admittedly no services were rendered in India for which the foreign assignment allowance was received by the assessee, the same was not chargeable to tax in India even in terms of the deeming provisions of Section 9(1)(ii), quashes revision u/s. 263.
Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (IT & TP)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20494 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
The windmill is an independent one and can function independently and the expenditure incurred on the new windmill cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Pandian Chemicals Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20493 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In order to bid for mining rights and obtain tenders from the government/local authorities to conduct mining, it is necessary for the bidder to have requisite credentials and past experience in the said field.
Shri Chandra Mohan Gupta Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20492 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.