-
As the material has been received by the assessee during the FY ended 31st March 2010, the assessee had a present obligation to make payment for the purchases made. The estimate made by the assessee is a reliable estimate which is also accepted by the industry. The liability is crystallised and slight variation in the price at the year-end does not mean that the liability is contingent.
Vedanta Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20303 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued before the death of the assessee. It is the settled law that the proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act cannot become fatal if the notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Act on the live person at that relevant time but died subsequently.
BHUMIKA NAVINBHAI PATEL, L/H OF NAVINBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL VERSUS I.T.O, WARD-2 (2) , BARODA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20302 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The law is settled to the extent that it is outside the domain of the AO to question the necessity of incurring an expenditure. Thus the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer that the transaction for purchase of trademark are not genuine cannot stand test of the law. It is an settled principle of law that intangible assets such as trademark, goodwill are also qualifies for depreciation at prescribed rates.
M/S. INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD 2 (1) , CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20301 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78627&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HSCI had paid a referral fee to assessee for introducing ABB to HSCI. Briefly, ABB Switzerland wanted to increase its equity stake in ABB Ltd. India through a voluntary offer and hence needed the services of a merchant banker in India. As per Section 9 of the Act, income earned by a non-resident is taxable in India if, inter-alia, the non-resident has a business connection in India and the income arises through or from the business connection; or it is in the nature of royalty or ‘Fees for Technical Services’.
HSBC BANK PLC C/O SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP VERSUS DCIT (IT) -2 (2) (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20300 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no legal liability of shareholders to make the payment. The AO did not furnish any material to show that the assessee had engaged the Barclays and the company made the payment on behalf of the assessee to derive the benefit directly or indirectly. Directors or shareholders are permitted to appoint their own consultant who will not have any say in the success fee.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) , GUNTUR VERSUS SRI DANDA BRAHMANANDAM AND SRI BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20299 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78632&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
U/S. 68 of the Act, it is only the credit entry appearing in the books of account of an assessee for the relevant previous year, that can be treated as unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee. Therefore, the opening balances cannot be added u/s. 68.
M/S. KNR ROOFING PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20298 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78639&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The disclosure is attributed to assessee's parent company in the proceedings in USA and not by the assessee as such, further notes that it was not Revenue's contention that the amounts referred to in the disclosure had been received in the accounts of the assessee or spent by the assessee on instructions so as to be treated as undisclosed income.
Goodyear India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20297 (SC)
-
The change of address in the database of PAN is must, in case of change in the name of the company and/or any change in the registered office or the corporate office the assessee is also required to make an application for change of address in the departmental database of PAN, which in the present case the assessee has failed to do so.
IVen Interactive Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20296 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
S. 2(15)/11: Though the assessee is activity contributing towards the promotion and popularity of cricket, its activities are also concentrated for generation of revenue by exploiting the popularity of the game and towards monopolization and dominant control over cricket to the exclusion of others. The commercial exploitation of the popularity of the game and the property/infrastructure held by the assessee is not incidental to the main object but is one of the primary motives of the assessee (All imp judgements on 'charitable purpose' referred)
Punjab Cricket Association vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20295 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Sections 2(15), 11
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: As the share applicant companies were controlled by an infamous accommodation entry provider, it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to have carried out an in-depth verification of the genuineness of the transaction of receipt of share application money by the assessee from the said parties. However, the authorities have not done even the bare minimum for verifying the genuineness of the transaction. Such a casual approach cannot be subscribed on our part (NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161 (SC) followed)
ITO vs. Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20294 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
Black Money Act: It is not correct to say that while exercising powers under Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015. The penal provisions u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of S. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon
UOI vs. Gautam Khaitan
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20293 (SC)
-
Assessee had entered into the lease agreement with the PSIDC on 28.10.1993 for a period of three years upto 31.10.1996. The said lease agreement sufficiently indicates that no landlord / tenant existed between two parties after 31.10.1996. We further find from the arbitration award to this effect dated 28.04.1997 that the assessee had been awarded damages with interst than rental amount of the property in issue.
TALWAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20292 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Benefit of exemption from MAT is provided only for business, as specified, carried on by the persons who have got approvals under the SEZ Act and which are carried on in SEZ or units therein. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that sub-section (6) is to be interpreted independently, thus making the assessee eligible for exemption from payment of MAT also.
M/S GEE CITY BUILDERS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20291 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78617&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, basis of rejection of rejection of accounts by the Assessing Officer was totally erroneous and uncalled for. The Assessing Officer has not given any reason which would fall within the four corners of the ingredients as stipulated u/s. 145 (3) of the Act. Basis of making the addition on the basis of G.P. is also unsustainable, as making the GP addition on the basis of earlier year or future year is not called for when the rejection of books of account was found to be unsustainable.
M/S. GINNI FILAMENTS LTD. VERSUS A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20290 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78618&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the TDS relevant for the period covered by the declaration filed under the IDS is given credit as per the CBDT’s clarification itself, there is no logic as to why advance tax paid for the very same period, which has not been given credit to earlier, should not be adjusted against the amount payable under the IDS. In the case on hand, the declaration of the petitioner pertains to the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16.
ATLURI PURNACHANDRA RAO VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20289 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80225&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have perused the two letters which had weighed with the High Court. Our analysis of the said letters is that, they had been in refutal of the allegations contained in the news items which were published around that time, when the communication was sent by the assessee to the Department with an explanation and a without-prejudice offer.
M/S GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20288 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80228&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address and/or change in the name of the assessee, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee, more particularly when the return has been filed under EModule scheme.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20287 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80233&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38)/ 68: Bogus LTCG from penny stocks: The fact that a scam has taken place in some penny stocks does not mean that all transactions in penny stocks can be regarded as bogus. In deciding whether the claim is genuine or not, the authorities have to be guided by the legal evidence and not on general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior, modus operandi etc. The AO has to show with evidence the chain of events and live link of the assessee's involvement in the scam including that he paid cash and in return received exempt LTCG gains (Sanjay Bimalchand Jain 89 TM 196 (Bom) distinguished)
Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20286 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 10(38), 68
-
S. 143(2): Mere mentioning of new address in the return of income is not enough. If change of address is not specifically intimated to the AO, he is justified in sending the notice at the address mentioned in PAN database. If the notice is sent within the period prescribed in s. 143(2), actual service of the notice upon the assessee is immaterial
PCIT vs. IVen Interactive Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20285 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
We find force in the contention of the assessee, that the PE constitute in India by the assessee under Phase-II of the contract with JKSPDC did not play any role or contributed in any manner to the execution of the other contracts or earning of FTS under other contracts and cannot thus be said to be involved with any other projects in India.
M/s Lahmeyer International GmbH Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20284 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.