-
It is not in dispute that the assessee surrendered a sum of ₹ 30.00 lacs on account of incriminating material found during the search, therefore, the transaction of loan between two independent parties even if through the service of the assessee being broker cannot be thrust upon the assessee for want of taxing the same in the hands of the actual parties to the transaction.
SHIV PRAKASH BAJAJ VERSUS D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20415 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79027&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso.
M/S. SHARDLOW INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 6 (1), CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20414 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79029&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer.
SEEMA SUBHASH ZAMBAD VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20413 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79032&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue is not justified in relying upon Section 132B to retain the asset, when admittedly, as on date there are no arrears of tax due from the petitioner and that the assessment for 2013-14 is not yet completed and the liability is arrived.
Padam J.Challani Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20409 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 132B
-
HC had firmly rejected petitioner's plea of hostile discrimination as the provision is applicable only to resident taxpayers and it does not apply to domestic companies and non-residents and this HC order is being held.
RAJAN BHATIA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20407 (SC)
-
The credit worthiness of the transaction cannot be said to be proved merely on the strength of the bank statement or identity of the creditor. The assessee did not produce the income tax return of the lender or any confirmation.
Siddharth Exports Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20406 (HC-DELHI) · Section 68
-
It is axiomatic that provisions of Section 194C would apply to a contract for work and not to a contract for sale.
TIMES VPL LTD. THE CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20404 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections 194C, 40(a)(ia)
-
Advance given by a company to another company in ordinary course of business is not deemed dividend for assessee-individual holding more than 20% shares in both the companies. As long as the dividend is referred to in Sec.115-O, it will be exempted from tax u/s 10(34). If Section 10 (34) stipulates that dividend is not taxable, the Settlement Commission cannot tax the same.
R Chitra Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20403 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The A.O who passed the assessment order does not possess valid jurisdiction/authority in absence of separate order u/s 120(4)(b).
Shri Kishore Vithaldas Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20399 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 120(4)(b)
-
The assessee would be eligible for benefit of deduction u/s 54F towards the independent houses received provided other conditions stipulated in the act are fulfilled.
Sri Potla Nageswara Rao Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20398 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Royalty paid to foreign company for merely acquiring right to use the technical know-how whereas the ownership remained with the foreign company, shall be allowed as business expenditure.
Heidelberg Cement India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20397 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act cannot apply to a foreign company as the relevant Rule 11U which defines balance sheet was not applicable to a foreign company.
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20396 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viia)
-
CBDT Circular No.6/2016 dated 29th February, 2016 cannot be held prospective in nature, since it is clarificatory in nature.
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20395 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since SDT was less than Rs.5 crores in the relevant year, hence provisions of sec 92BA would not apply.
Yash Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20394 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
Pursuant to the final and binding allotment of the office premises on 03.12.1999, the assessee got vested with the ownership of the rights in respect of the property under consideration.
Suresh Brothers Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-16(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20393 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The mere fact that assessee and his wife are trustees in the trust does not ipso facto prove that they are beneficiaries of this fund nor there is no material on record brought by the Assessing Officer to say that the money was diverted to the trust by the assessee and his wife.
Karuppuswamy Pandiarajan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20392 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Levy of penalty for delayed filing of tax audit report and income tax return. Undoubtedly the Revenue could not find any fault in the income returned by the assessee for the impugned year, despite subjecting it to scrutiny assessment. What emerges from the same is that the non filing of tax audit report and of the return of income by the specified due date was definitely not intentional with the purpose of not disclosing any income for taxation.
SH. BALBIR SINGH CHADHA VERSUS THE CIT (APPEALS) -2, CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20391 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78964&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of law whether the finding of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the NRV as declared by respondent/assessee and was right in not adopting the cost price for computation of closing stock held that the assessee could have adopted the NRV method for valuation of closing stock and whether it is mandatory to value the cost on cost basis, it was held that Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions and observation that closing stock can be valued on cost price or market price, if the market price is less than the cost.
ACIT-1 (1) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20390 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have gone through the record carefully. Jurisdiction in the AO for passing the impugned order on the present issue was being infused by the order of the ld.Commissioner passed under section 263. Once that order was set side, then there is no issue remained to be inquired at the end of the AO. Power to pass fresh assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 with the AO on this issue has been extinguished.
ITO, WARD-5 (2) (3) AHMEDABAD. VERSUS SMT. DARSHINIBEN M. ADANI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20389 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sanction letter issued by the Bank of Baroda, London which is also placed on record by the assessee also reveals that the corporate guarantee was to be given in accordance with the applicable R.B.I. guidelines and it further stipulated that no guarantee commission was payable by Ganesh Shipping Inc. Panama it to the guarantors.
B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 5 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20388 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78969&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.