-
Proviso to Section 50C of the Act is effective from 01-04-2013 and amendment brought to Section 50C was treated as retrospective. The other decisions of the Tribunal as relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee have also taken consistent view that proviso to section 50C is having retrospective effect being remedial / clarificatory in nature.
M/S. METAL EXTRUSION INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE ADDL. CIT CIRCLE – 1 JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20243 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78366&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Contention of the assessee that vide Clause 10 of the partnership deed dt. 01/12/2002 the salary may be increased or decreased from time to time in the interest of partnership business has not been rebutted. It is also noticed that the A.O. himself admitted in the assessment order that the assessee furnished addendum partnership deed which has been reproduced at page no. 6 of the said assessment order.
M/S DEMARTE SILK AND SAREES VERSUS THE ITO WARD-7 (1) LUDHIANA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20242 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78368&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Possession is handed over to the builder only for limited purpose to enter upon the property for the purpose of implementation of JDA. In the present case, such permission to enter the scheduled property is granted subject to completion of certain conditions i.e. on approval of the plan and grant of licence for construction of the buildings from BBMP and/or from concerned authorities.
SHRI A.R. PRASAD, SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI VERSUS THE ITO, WARD – 6 (2) (4) , BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20241 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78371&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
While total deposit in cash was found to be ₹ 33,42,622/-, there is simultaneous withdrawal to the extent of ₹ 30,50,000/- during the year. The cash book filed by the assessee showing day-to-day generation of cash and deposits thereof also makes it clear that the assessee is engaged in systematic activity of retail business.
JAYESH N BARAD, C/O JHS & ASSOCIATES LLP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 1 (1) (1) , AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20240 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78374&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The role of the appellant was limited to mere supply of hardware components directly from Italy in such a manner that sales stood concluded, title transferred and consideration received outside India. No business connection can be said to have been established. No liability will arise to a non-resident where transaction of sale is on principal to principal basis since the transaction of supply of components by the appellant are on its own account, unaffected by the services to be rendered by SPCNL.
The Dy.C.I.T. Vs M/s Siemens Mobile Communications SPA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20239 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The occasion to deduct tax at source would not arise. The service providers did not have PE in India. A retrospective amendment cannot cast an obligation to deduct tax when not in force at the relevant time i.e. when payment was made.
KPMG Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20238 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Stay of demand u/s 220(6)/254(2A): The Dept is not right in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfing of Road Agency vs. CBI (AIR 2018 SC 2039) to contend that any stay against recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the SC, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the AO to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances
Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20237 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Service Tax/ GST: The collection of non-refundable deposits by the assessee from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, does not result in the assessee providing management, maintenance or repair service as defined in Section 65(105)(zzg) of Finance Act 1994
CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20236 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Where assessee running a proprietorship concern, took cash loans from her husband carrying on another proprietorship business on account of business exigencies for making payments to labourers and lenders, there being no violation of provisions of section 269SS, impugned penalty order passed under section 271D was to be set aside.
SRI MALLIDI BHUPATHI REDDY VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 RAJAHMUNDRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20235 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78309&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 143(2) states that where a return has been furnished u/s 139, the AO, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not under paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the AO or to produce, or cause to be produced before the AO any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return.
BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 12 (2), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20234 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78311&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Due to peculiar nature of the product and constant mixing and re-mixing of diamonds obtained from AEs and non-AEs, it would not be feasible to maintain records to determine segmental profitability to work out internal TNMM. The undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has carried out certain international transactions during the year with its AE and benchmarked the same using TNMM method in its Transfer Pricing Study which has been accepted by Ld. TPO.
DCIT-5 (2) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. K. GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78315&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee carried on the agricultural activity till 31.03.2008 and subsequently sold the land in plots. Though the assessee has taken permission for conversion of land for plotting into various units, no evidence was brought on record by the AO that the assessee has carried on any developmental activity. The assessee has not incurred any other expenditure except for payment of conversion fees, transport charges, labour charges etc.
NATTA SURYARAO S/O LATE MANGANNA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 TANUKU
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20232 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78318&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec. 43CA (which deems stamp valuation as sales consideration for land and building held as stock in trade) was inserted w.e.f 1.4.2014 and was not applicable for subject AY. In absence of any such statutory provisions giving rise to the deeming fiction, Revenue cannot tax any amount which has not been received by a seller of an immovable property at the time of sale.
ZAIN CONSTRUCTIONS Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(3)(5) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20231 (SC) · Section 43CA
-
From the penalty order, we find that the assessee has not filed any Explanation before the A.O. except requesting the A.O. to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the assessee’s appeal before the ITAT is disposed of. The AO, however, concluded the proceedings by observing that the assessee has not submitted any explanation to the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 issued u/s 271AAA r.w.s. 274.
JANARDHAN REDDY BEKKERY, HYDERABAD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (PRESENTLY DCIT, CIRCLE – 6 (1) HYDERABAD.)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20230 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78291&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere reflection of certain transaction in Form 26AS is not determinative of holding such transaction as taxable transaction in the hands of the assessee. However, given that the transaction has been reflected in Form 26AS, the onus is on the assessee to demonstrate that such transaction doesn’t represent real income in its hands.
M/S JAIPUR STOCK SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20229 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78294&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The explanation of the assessee is that it was forced to repay the loan in cash on account of business expediency to meet the working capital limits of one the business concern in which he is interested; cannot be considered to be valid explanation for repayment of loan in cash. The fact that assessee accepted loan in cash and repaid the loan in cash goes to prove that there is active collusion with the lender in evading the taxes.
SHRI. P. SUNDARAMURTHY VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20228 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78295&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO cannot remain passive in the face of a claim, which calls for further enquiry to know the genuineness of it. In other words, he must carry out investigation where the facts of the case so require and also decide the matter judiciously on the basis of materials collected by him as also those produced by the assessee before him. AO was statutorily required to make the assessment u/s 143(3) after scrutiny and not in a summary manner as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 143.
DR. BALACHANDRAN NAIR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), TRIVANDRUM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20227 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78279&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the option to determine the fair market value of shares either under the DCF method or the NAV method. The assessee's choice is binding on the AO. While the AO can scrutinize the working, he cannot discard the assessee's method and substitute another method (Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 73 (Bom) referred)
Narang Access Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20226 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 48 Capital Gains: The payment towards discharge of outstanding loan liability out of the sale proceeds of mortgaged property is a mere application of income and not a diversion of sale proceeds by overriding title. The assessee cannot claim such application as deduction for the purpose of computing Capital Gain in terms of s. 48 of the Act. The legal position prevailing prior to SARFAESI Act is also germane even after the enactment of SARFAESI Act
Perfect Thread Mills Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20225 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 48
-
Impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment order had valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer of the assessee and to pass the impugned assessment order.
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED (AFTER MERGER OF SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.) 24 VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-1, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20224 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78238&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.