-
Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act is to be charged, or not, has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of the ‘Radha Mohan Purshottam Das Agarwal’ Group, consisting of nine appeals, on facts exactly similar, mutatis mutandis, to those present in the case of the assessee presently under appeal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assesses.
M/S RADHA MOHAN PURSHOTTAM DAS JEWELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT CC-II KANPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20387 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78973&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The extant issue of deduction for payment of excessive price for purchase of sugarcane, raised in most of the appeals under consideration, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law.
KARMAVEER SHANKARRAO KALE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-3, AHMEDNAGAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20386 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there was no business operation of LD&PL during the period of purchase and sale of shares and astronomical increase of share price of LD&PL which led to returns at 350%, in our opinion, is unjustified.
Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20385 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
It is trite law that the Tribunal is bound by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and has no power to declare any provisions of either the Act or Rules to be invalid or ultra vires.
Nirani Sugars Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20384 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Inadvertent mistake to offer the said income to tax was brought to the notice of the AO, the AO was under obligation to take the necessary steps under section 154 to correct the said mistake in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Since it is not a claim of deduction made by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148.
SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), KOTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20383 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78942&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the appeal order passed under section 47 of the Maharashtra regional and city planning Act,1966, it appeared that there was some construction in the project prior to the amendment proposal in the development plan forwarded by the owner of the land which was rejected by CIDCO vide order dated 18/06/1998.
SHIVAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX–32
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78946&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When an assessee authorizes a counsel to appear on his behalf, such authorization is given by placing faith on the legal expertise of the Counsel and also with the hope that the counsel shall take care of the interest of the assessee. Hence, when there is a lapse on the part of the legal counsel, in my view, the assessee should not be found fault with. Unless done with malafide intentions.
Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20377 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
Like Article 25 of the Indo-USA treaty, treaties with various other countries such as Indo-Denmark, Indo-Hungary, Indo-Norway, Indo-Oman, Indo-US, Indo- Saudi Arabia, Indo-Taiwan also have similar provision providing for benefit of foreign tax credit even in respect of income not subjected to tax in India. However, Indo-Canada and Indo-Finland treaties do not provide for such benefit unless the income is subjected to tax in both the countries.
Tata Consultancy Service Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20376 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Settlement Application: For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, the case continues to be pending with the AO. Therefore, it was open to him to invoke the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act (CIT Vs. ITSC 58 TM 264 & Yashovardhan Birla 73 TM 5 followed, V.R.A. Cotton Mills 33 TM 675 & Shlibhadra Developers 2016 (10) TMI 778 distinguished)
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20375 (HC-P&H)
-
Doctrine of mutuality: A club registered as a 'company' u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place. Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members. The ratio decidendi in Bacha F. Guzdar 27 ITR 1 does not apply to such clubs. When a club supplies goods to its members, there is no "sale" and sales-tax cannot be levied (Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC), Venkatesh Premises Coop Soc 402 ITR 670 (SC) & other imp judgements referred)
State Of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20374 (SC) · Section 25
-
Recall of ex-parte order: A 'power of attorney holder' is an 'agent' and 'Principal Officer' u/s 2(35). If a CA is granted a POA, service upon him of a notice is valid. If a notice is duly served upon the litigant through its authorized representative, and it was provided sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and contest the matter but the litigant choses to let the matter proceed exparte, the order cannot be recalled
PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20373 (SC) · Section 2(35)
-
S. 254(2A): In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay
PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20372 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254(2A)
-
Sec 24(b) (providing for interest deduction) and Sec. 48 (providing for computation of capital gains) are covered under different heads and neither of the sections excludes operation of the other.
Ashok Kumar Shahi Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20365 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since the legislature has itself amended Section 40(a) (ia) vide the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 restricting a disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. Therefore AO is directed to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only.
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20364 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
In view of above categorical facts coming out of the assessment proceedings, on perusal of the deviation report and appraisal report that for the concluded assessment is no incriminating evidences were found.
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20363 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Member of the AOP i.e. HPL is entitled to 2% of guaranteed profits regardless of the fact whether AOP made profits or losses. This is only a charge against the profits of the assessee AOP but not share in profits.
Herve Pomerleau International CCCL Joint Venture Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20362 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The Assessing Officer has not properly considered the factual aspect and has suddenly jumped to the conclusion for violation of section 40 A(3). We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to go through the above details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
GLOBAL CONNECT TRAVELS P. LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD – 10 (2) NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20361 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There is no dispute regarding genuineness of the payment. In this view of the matter there is no accounting mandate that business expenditure incurred need to be allocated to the entire cost of land which is in stock of assessee to artificially increase the cost. In fact this is not sustainable as per accounting principle as the compensation paid has not been incurred for acquisition of land.
ACIT 29 (1) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. EPLUS GREEN 9
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20360 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78881&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Revenue could not, on the one hand, contend that the amount was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee and, at the same time, seek to initiate the proceedings against the assessee for alleged violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act; and that the Revenue having taken the stand that the income was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, it could not resort to the proceedings u/s. 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act.
CODE ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. CIT, CIRCLE 8 (3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20359 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78885&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute to this fact that the alleged amount is the net of gain/loss of the foreign currency received during the year from the revenue operations carried out by the assessee in the Special Economic Zone units running at Hyderabad and Pune. Therefore the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition treating the amount as part of relief eligible for exemption u/s 10AA.
ACIT-4 (1), INDORE VERSUS M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20358 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78890&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.