-
Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have been able to prove ingredients of Section 68. A.O. however did not make any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee.
AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND VICE VERSA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20357 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78891&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is also not disputed before us by the Revenue that the return of income in electronic form is self populted i.e. on filling in some entries, the other entries in the return are indicated by the system itself. Thus, the petitioner is unable to make a claim which according to him, he is entitled to in law.
SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (4), MUMBAI & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20356 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80306&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Period for which the person was a member of the recognised stock exchange in India immediately prior to such de- mutualisation or corporatisation shall also be included in the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd.
M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT - 4(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee is entitled to claim deduction.
Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20351 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Where during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in the name of said non-existent entity would be without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside.
Idea Cellular Ltd (as Successor of Spice Communications Ltd) Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The term Industrial Undertaking having been defined in the Act, though for a different statutory provision, can be a guiding factor to the intention of the legislature to apply that definition to statutory provision in which the said term has not been defined.
Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20349 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Assessee fails to bring on record any tangible material to substantiate he was carrying jewellery of 700gms of M/s Vikram Jewellers therefore the addition made by AO is upheld.
Vivek Rohatigi Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20348 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 69A
-
Expenses incurred for issue of bonus shares being capitalization of reserves merely resulted in reallocation of companies funds and there was no inflow of fresh funds or increase in capital employed.
Empower India Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20347 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B.
Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20346 (SC) · Section 36(1) (iii)
-
Where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority.
Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20345 (HC-DELHI)
-
No question of law arises.
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20339 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
In the present case the obligation to deduct TDS is on the assessee’s customers and the consequences of non-deduction would be faced by the assessee’s customers. Therefore, in such a case, the legal right if any is of the customer who is required to deduct tax at source.
Quick Heal Technologies Ltd Vs The Union of India & Others
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20338 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
In the present case, there is no possibility of cascading effect nor the issue is involved in group of matters, as such.
S.C.Naregal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20337 (SC)
-
The procedure of filing the return of income cannot bar an assessee from making a claim under the Act which he feels he is entitled to.
Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20336 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has refused admission to any person of the economically weaker section nor the Government has taken any action against the assessee for such violation.
Devki Devi Foundation Vs DIT (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20335 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 12A
-
Recovery of Tax u/s 220(6)/ 245: (i) The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand; (ii) It will be specious & illogical for the Revenue to contend that if an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund can be adjusted u/s 245, on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year (iii) The decisions of CIT(A) & Tribunal in favour of the assessee should not be ignored, (iv) Income-tax officials are officers of the State and the Law requires that they perform their duties with utmost objectivity and fairness, while keeping in mind the sanctity of the role and function assigned to them which at times requires tough steps (Maruti Suzuki Ltd 347 ITR 47 (Del) followed)
Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20328 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections 220(6), 245
-
S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. Addl CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20327 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(7A), 120(4)
-
S. 147/ 154: The AO cannot, after conclusion of proceedings u/s 147, take aid of Explanation 3 to S. 147 to make any addition u/s 154. If the Dept's argument is accepted that u/s 154 the AO is empowered to deal with escapement of income even after the s. 147 assessment is completed, it would empower the AO to go on making one addition after the other by taking shelter of Explanation 3 to S. 147 endlessly. Such a course is not permissible
JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20326 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 154
-
As per material placed on record, we found that the claim is made on account of misappropriation of funds by the ex-director of the company. The said director misused his authority while holding the position and incurred various expenses from the company's funds which were of personal in nature.
CENTRUM BROKING LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T., 4 (1) (1) MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20325 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78739&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CC – 4, NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20324 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78741&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.