-
Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20478 (SC)
-
The applicant has a prima-facie case in its favour, insofar as granting of stay against recovery of outstanding demand is concerned, subject to the condition that part of the demand totaling to Rs.20 crores is paid by the applicant.
Fox Networks Group Singapore PTE Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20474 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the AO has raised specific query in respect to bank accounts including overseas investment, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous for the lack of enquiry or proper enquiry.
Mr. Ajay Gopikisan Piramal Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20473 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
So far as the source jurisdiction taxability under the treaty provisions is concerned, legal amendments so as to influence the taxability even under the treaty situation, by the source jurisdictions unilaterally, are impermissible. That will be the end result of a domestic law amendment of an undefined treaty term, in departure from the current position, and import such amended meaning of that term, under article 3(2), in the treaty situations as well.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Thorough and investigative enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer, not only from the assessee, but also from all the concerned persons and hence revisionary powers u/s. 263 cannot be invoked. Proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated in this case apparently on the basis of false, frivolous and baseless allegations with malafide intention of the quarter concerned which were also examined and found not sustainable by the Vigilance Directorate of Income-tax Department.
Smt. Shumana Sen Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20471 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
The scheme of Section 11A of the Act does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie, be: (a) a preliminary determination that the process or activity undertaken in the matter amounts to manufacture; and (b) before arriving at such preliminary determination, any hearing to the concerned person is contemplated.
KRISHNA WAX (P)LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20470 (SC)
-
It would also be an aspect of fairness in tax administration that the assessee is not prejudiced on account of service of an order, through a mode that he did not opt for in the event of an ambiguity in construing the provisions in a taxing statute, it has to take a view that favours the assessee.
FCI OEN Connectors Limited vs. DCIT, ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20469 (HC-KERALA) · Section 144C(2)
-
Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s).
Senior Bhosale Estate Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20468 (SC)
-
Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement and on such basis, it cannot be held that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain.
P.P. Mahatme, Power of Attorney Lorna Margaret Pinto Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20467 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 149(3)
-
AO rejected the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3). Thus once the AO has invoked the provisions of section 145(3), the only course of action left with the AO to proceed with the assessment on best judgment basis and the income of the assessee ought to have been estimated on some reasonable and proper basis. It is also not in dispute that the past history i.e. the GP/NP declared by the assessee is the proper and reasonable basis and guidance for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration.
M/S. CHEMICALS INDIA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20456 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79148&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of stay application before the Tribunal thus normally comes into play only when the demands in question are impugned in appeal before us. That apart, the stay under section 220(6) can only be granted by the Assessing Officer, and not by his supervisory authorities such as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. As a matter of fact, an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, declining grant of stay during the currency of appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A), is only an administrative order.
SALE MOHD PADAMSEE & CO VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 25 MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20455 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79149&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in own case Order appealed against is an order passed under section 195(2) against ONGC requiring it to deduct tax at source on payments made to the assessee. Further, there is no final determination of liability under the Act as far as the assessee is concerned which can only be determined when assessment is framed against the assessee.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T) CIRCLE–3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS ABUDHABI SHIP BUILDING PJSC C/O APPROACH PROPERTIES P. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20454 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79152&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
An examination of the working of total estimated loss on the project “S.S. House” as worked out by the assessee clearly indicates that it suffers from basic deficiencies viz. (i) total cost incurred till 31/03/2014 ₹ 91,07,85,390/ or ₹ 978,886,048/- is not a reliable one, as the assessee is sticking to two figures, without supporting computation, and (ii) total estimated loss of ₹ 3,95,51,736/- or ₹ 108,431,736/- is not a reliable one, as the assessee is sticking to two figures, without supporting computation, (iii) there is no prudent estimate of additional cost for completion of the project.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25 (3) VERSUS M/S SS ENTERPRISES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20453 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79153&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If all these things are put in perspective, then the contention of the ld. Special Counsel and ld. CIT (E) is to be believed that it is only when the Investigation Wing and Income-tax Department started making certain investigation and enquiries and also looking to the fact that no genuine activity was carried out for the period of five years, the assessee may have been prompted to surrender its registration u/s. 12AA.
Young Indian Vs CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20452 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
If the assessee acquires a new property on sale of a capital asset in terms of Sec.54, then irrespective of the Nexus of the fund, mathematical formulae is required to be applied for the purpose of computation of the chargeability of the balance capital gain.
Romita Mathur Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20451 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
The fact that the assessee had also not placed on record any material which would reveal that he had at any occasion reciprocated a similar gift to his sister, also supports the fact that no genuine gift was received by the assessee from his sister.
Kailash A. KotharI Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
CIT(A) rejected assessee's plea for rectification upon observing that the issue of adjustment to cost had already been decided and holding that rectification application can only be entertained with respect to the visible flaws in the order and not for the adjudication of grounds. In such an event the Revenue need not have any grievance against such a finding of the CIT(A). Dismisses the ground of the Revenue.
Tower Watson India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Watson Wyatt India Pvt. Ltd.) Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20449 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessee instead of pointing out mistake apparent from record, seems to be calling for reviewing of the order of the tribunal, which was not permitted as per Sec.254(2), thus dismisses the application for rectification.
Premier Industries (I) Ltd Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20448 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
The aggregation of the share trading loss and profit from derivatives transaction should be done before application of Explanation to section 73 of the Act and since there was surplus profit on such aggregation, Explanation to section 73 would not be applicable.
Lohia Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20447 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
In coming to its conclusion, SMC bench has duly considered the earlier order of the Division Bench. The order of SMC bench of the tribunal is also binding on the present bench and since the earlier order of Division bench is duly considered by SMC bench, I am duty bound to follow this later tribunal order of SMC Bench.
Mahalakshmi Souharda Credit Co Operative Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20446 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80P
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.