-
Considering the facts, submissions and judicial decisions and applying the logical consideration found that when the liability payable by the assessee is Rs.80,940 and levying the cost of Rs.50,000 is absurd on face and hence, it is an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Act.
Ample Mart Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20445 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 254(2)
-
Commercial expediency of an expenditure amounting to Rs.25.74 lakhs on employee benefits is not justified for a company having only 14 employees, especially when the activity carried on by the assessee during the year under consideration was limited.
Highrise Marketing Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20444 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Not adjudicating upon all the foregoing issues on merits suffers from an apparent mistake on the face of record.
Linde India Ltd Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20443 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
There has been complete non-application of mind to the germane and relevant considerations by the Respondents [i.e Revenue] while dealing with the Petitioner's application. Till the fresh certificate is issued, the Petitioner's receipts of payment shall be subject to Nil rate of deduction of tax at source in respect of payments made to it in India.
LUFTHANSA CARGO AG Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20442 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
If the assessee satisfies that the amount for which deduction is sought for u/s. 54 is utilised either for purchasing or constructing the residential house in India within the time prescribed u/s. 54(1), the deduction is bound to be granted without reference to Section 54(2).
Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20441 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 54(1), 54(2)
-
The number of customers of the Assessee run into lacs of persons and it would not be economically feasible for the Assessee to recover petty amounts from the persons who have indulged in defaults or frauds.
M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD. Vs PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-9
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20440 (HC-DELHI)
-
Sec 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions.
Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20433 (SC)
-
The intention of introducing Section 241A simultaneous with the insertion of the aforenoted proviso was to address the grievance of the assessees relating to delay in issuance of refund in genuine cases which are routinely selected for scrutiny assessment.
Maple Logistics Private Limited &Anr Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20432 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 241A
-
What has to be disallowed under Explanation 1 to Sec.37(1) of the Act is a payment made, for contravention of laws in force in India and not of any foreign country.
Mylan Laboratories Limited Vs Dy.CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20431 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The court has awarded the interest on the enhanced compensation to the 5 parties. Therefore in our considered view the impugned interest income belongs to the 5 parties as claimed by the assessee. Assessee during the assessment proceedings has submitted the details of the parties who are entitled for the interest income along with the period to which the interest pertains.
NAVINBHAI MANILAL PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20430 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79083&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Payment was made from the current account held with the bank, are duly reflected in the ledger accounts. The details of party wise interest paid also reveals that no interest was paid to such bank. The said bank account is reflecting under the head current assets in the balance sheet. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee had to apply for the flat as a measure of commercial expediency in order to recover the fees amount.
M/S DESIGN FORUM INTERNATIONAL VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-63 (1), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20429 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79085&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the proceeding u/s 153A is initiated which are special proceedings, the legislature provides different treatments for abated and unabated assessments. However, in respect of unabated assessments the legislature has conferred powers on the AO to just follow the assessments already concluded unless incriminating materials are found in the course of search. It is also pertinent to note that the tax can be levied as per the provision of the Act.
SHRI NARESH J. KOTAK, C/O. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY LLP, MUMBAI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (4), (FORMERLY A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 39) MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20428 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee has filed the return of income on 30.09.2012 and the time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2013 prior to the date of transfer of the case to the AO having jurisdiction and the present AO had issued notice u/s 153C on 23.07.2014. By the time, the case was notified to the present AO, the assessment for the A.Y.2012-13 is unabated. The AO is not permitted to make any addition without having the incriminating material.
BOMMANA RAJKUMAR PROP. M/S BOMMANA RAJKUMAR & CO MAIN ROAD RAJAHMUNDRY VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20427 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The forward foreign exchange contract entered into by the assessee to buy or sell foreign currency at an agreed price at a a future date cannot be considered as a contingent in nature as it creates a continuing binding obligation on the date of the contract against the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 VERSUS M/S. HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20426 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80373&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of this section would reveal that the expression receive employed in this clause would indicate that the assessee should have actually received the amounts, and not a notional one, because in various authoritative pronouncements it has been construed that the amounts should have been actually received. Since assessee has not received actual consideration, it has only received cheques which have not been encashed.
Luxmi Foodgrains P.Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20425 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
If the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners under the Act is allowed, it would knock down the very basis of the prosecution against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings may be ordered to be kept in abeyance.
Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20424 (HC-KERALA)
-
Assessee's claim seeking treaty benefit should not be entertained as assessee had not made any claim by way of valid return.
Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20419 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The shareholding of the assessee in his individual capacity could neither be clubbed with the holding of his HUF nor with the holding in his capacity of the Executor of the Estate.
ACIT Vs Shri. Prem Sagar
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20418 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
S. 56(2)(viia) cannot apply to a foreign company as Rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines "balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company. If the computation provisions cannot apply, the charging section cannot apply. The amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 is prospective in nature (B. C. Srinivasa Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC), Palai Central Bank Ltd (1985) 1 SCC 45 followed)
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20417 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viia)
-
S. 68/ 69C: Bogus share capital + Bogus purchases: Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature. On merits, all investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds. AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds. As regards bogus purchases, the AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20416 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 68, 69C
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.