-
HC was not right in holding that by the notification/ impugned order, the penal provisions were made applicable retrospectively. Observations made are only for the purpose of examining correctness of interim order & HC should be uninfluenced by the same.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs GAUTAM KHAITAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20263 (SC)
-
The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. We do not see any reason why the petitioner should not get the refund which flows from the order of assessment.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, and ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20262 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The occasion to seek invocation of such an administrative indulgence comes after the AO declines to exercise his powers of granting stay u/s. 220(6), and, perhaps for this reason, it is somewhat inappropriately described as an order u/s. 220(6).
Sale Mohd Padmasee & Co Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20261 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As the predominant object of the assessee is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not lose its charitable character. The surplus derived from running the STD booths, pharmaceutical shops etc. was incidental and ancillary to the dominant object of taking care of physically and mentally challenged persons and uplifting them and enabling them to survive and live in this society. In view of the above discussion we direct the AO to grant benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the assessee.
PASCHIMBANGA RAJYA PRATIBANDHI SAMMILANI VERSUS ADIT (EXEMPTION) -II, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20260 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78454&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of sec. 197A(1A) merely requires a declaration to be filed by the payee of interest and once it is filed, the payer of the interest has not choice except to desist from deducting tax at source from the interest paid. Non-mentioning of PAN in Form No.15G and Form No.15H is only a technical breach, when the payees were having PAN.
THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., BELLARY BRANCH, BELLARY. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20259 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78459&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Disallowance has been made on purely adhoc basis without pointing out any specific defect in the vouchers so maintained by the assessee. There is no finding that the expenses have not been incurred for the purpose of business or expenses are bogus in nature. Unless and until the AO brings out specific defect or gives a specific finding that expenses claimed are bogus in nature or not incurred for the purposes of the business.
M/S J.S. FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD., DELHI ROAD, ALWAR (RAJ.) VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-01, ALWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20258 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78460&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A.O. has specifically recorded the fact in the assessment order that initially in different account of the Investors, the cash have been deposited from where the amount have been transferred to the another accounts of Investors and then transferred to assessee. These informations are specific to show that against the cash, entry have been provided to the assessee by entry providers. Assessee failed to produce any evidence before the authorities below.
M/S. HILLMAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20257 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78462&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has not filed any evidence supporting this claim before us. In the absence of the requisite evidence in support of the claim that the solar generators were purchased, installed, put to use for business and the part payment of the same was also paid during the financial year 2012-13.
M/S. GUPTA SONS VERSUS PR. CIT-1 BHOPAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20256 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78464&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM): Even if the Revenue's theory of the assessee having enabled the clients to claim contrived losses is correct, the Revenue had to bring on record some evidence of the income earned by the assessee in the process, be it in the nature of commission or otherwise. Adding the entire amount of doubtful transactions by way of assessee's additional income is wholly impermissible. The fate of the individual investors in whose cases the Revenue could have questioned the artificial losses is not known
PCIT vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20255 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Taxability of loan waivers u/s 28(iv), 41(1): Argument of Revenue that loan taken from agents/ dealers is on revenue account or that on waiver of the loan, its character undergoes a change and it becomes on revenue account is not correct. S. 28(iv) & 41(1) cannot apply if the loan is on capital account and the assessee has never claimed any deduction therefor in the past (Solid Containers 308 ITR 417 (Bom) distinguished, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 404 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20254 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28(iv), 41
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The valuation of shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials. The substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet
India Convention and Culture Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20253 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The capital gains arising to Merrill Lynch Capital Market Espana SA SV on sale of shares in Indian real estate companies during AY 2013-14, are not taxable in India under Article 14(6) of the India-Spain DTAA and rejected revenue' s stand that the gains were covered by Article 14(4) and hence taxable in source jurisdiction i.e. India.
JCIT vs. Merrill Lynch Capital Market Espana SA SV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20252 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
It is not practically possible for the AO to allow TDS credit in the year in which corresponding income is offered to tax and it is for the assessee to point out the correct year and thereafter the AO can grant the TDS credit.
M/s. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd., Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20251 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 244A
-
Deduction u/s. 37(1) with respect to foreign turnover taxes paid during AY 2011-12 is allowed. This amount was deducted by overseas customer, on account of turnover taxes, while releasing payment against invoices raised by the assessee.
R. Systems International Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20250 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37(1)
-
The method of valuation i.e. NAV method or Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method to determine the FMV has to be adopted at assessee's option and the AO cannot change the method of valuation opted by the assessee, remits matter for re-calculation of FMV.
Narang Access Pvt. Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20249 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
It is immaterial whether the assessee has made profit out of such expenditure or not. For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii) of the income tax act it would be sufficient to prove that there is nexus between the income earned and amount expended.
Shri Kailash Chand Soni Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20248 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 57(iii)
-
A prima facie interference from the facts is that the sale transaction of shares on the last day of the financial year without independent corroborative evidences by way of adjustment of losses against the capital gain on lands were not genuine transaction.
Rakeshbhai Karsanbhai Patel Vs The D y. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20247 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Transfer of shares of Dish TV as 'gift' by assessee to its group company pursuant to consolidation of onshore media assets, not a colourable device and CIT's revisionary order u/s 263 for AY 2014-15 is quashed.
Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20246 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The services were rendered abroad and the payments for the said services were also made abroad by remitting foreign currency. The aforesaid payments cannot be held to be taxable in India as per the India- Singapore DTAA and consequently the assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 195.
Sundaram Asset Management Consultancy Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20245 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
If this plea of the Petitioner is not even looked at/ examined by the DRP, it would tantamount to a jurisdictional error. To relegate the Petitioner to the appellate remedies, where he would have to join the queue, in order to obtain an order of remand to DRP, would be unjustified. The DRP 'merely endorsed and followed' the reasoning provided by Delhi ITAT without giving any indication as to how the same was applicable to assessee while dealing with its foremost objection regarding the provisions of the Treaty.
P.D.R SOLUTIONS FZC Vs DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL- 2
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20244 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.