-
Assessee does not satisfy the one limb of first condition of section 271AAA(2) of the Act, i.e., admission of undisclosed in a statement u/s 132(4).
SMT. SHOBHA SARDANA, C/O-M/S. RRA TAXINDIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19785 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76700&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 12AA governs the procedure for Registration and revocation of Registration once granted. Sub-section (3) of the said Section mandates that Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner as it may, without affording a hearing to the Trust or Institution in terms of the said provision, the Certificate once granted u/s 12A cannot be cancelled.
JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S CRM JAT POST GRADUATE COLLEGE AND VICE-VERSA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19784 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76701&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee is an agriculturist selling his crop through M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, Panchkula and he was receiving the amount against the crops from the said Commission Agent, therefore it cannot be said that the assessee received or paid amounts in cash as a deposit or loan rather the amounts received in cash were against the agriculture crops, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case.
SH. HARDEEP SINGH VERSUS THE JCIT RANGE-III AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-17 CHANDIGARH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19783 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76703&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Non-filing of a return under sections 139(1) or 139(2) of the said Act was not involved. Neither is there any ratio in favour of the assessee in HARYANA HOTELS LTD.
BILASPUR SPINNING MILLS & INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – II, CALCUTTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19782 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79407&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondents have already collected over ₹ 185 crores from the Petitioner, as against the total demand raised of around ₹ 873.4 crores. The year-wise percentage of demand collected for the years 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 is over 21%.
M/S. DABUR INVEST CORP. VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19781 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79410&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the impugned order u/s. 281-B does not indicate that the AO formed an opinion about the reasonable likelihood of the recovery becoming difficult due to inadequacy of the assets of the Petitioner.
DABUR INVEST CORP Vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19780 (HC-DELHI)
-
The impugned expenditure on renovation and interior work of stadium incurred by Cricket Club was for upgradation of the existing facilities and did not create a new asset or a source of enduring benefit and hence, not capital in nature.
The Cricket Club of India Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19779 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) would not affect the assessee's liability to tax as even if the amount are disallowed and added to assessee's income, the same would be exempted u/s. 10A.
BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19778 (SC) · Sections 10A, 40(a)(ia)
-
The withholding certificate which directed TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner was unsustainable in law.
Bently Nevada Llc Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19777 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
These findings have been recorded in conformity with the requirements of Section 269UD(1) of the Act and hence deserve to be upheld.
Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19776 (SC)
-
Taxation regime applicable to non-residents need not be identical to that applicable to residents.
Rajan Bhatia Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Through Chairman & Anr
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19775 (SC) · Section 115BBDA
-
Would mean that the IT-Dept. should collect interest, for non-deduction/short-deduction of tax at source on the interest amount paid on the Income Tax refund to the assessee, from itself i.e. the Income Tax Department should charge interest, under Section 234B of the Act, on the Income Tax Department itself. This is extremely difficult to accept.
B.J. Services Company Middle East Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19774 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section 234B
-
When it comes to taxation, what is relevant is the provision of the Act which deals with taxability, but not guidelines issued by ICAI.
Reliance Corporate IT Park ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19773 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The consent waiver form, could not be termed as information or statements of account and affairs within the meaning of Section 133(6), the non-compliance of which is the primary ingredient to invoke the penal provisions u/s 272A(2)(c).
Shri Shalin Tandon Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee-company having received money as shareholder on the liquidation of a Company, Sec. 46(2) is clearly applicable and the capital gain or loss is required to be computed by applying the said provision.
Turner Morrison Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19771 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 46(2)
-
Dividend cannot be paid on such convertible debentures in a period before the date of conversion and such holders of convertible debentures cannot be granted voting rights at par with voting rights of shareholders during pre-conversion period.
CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19770 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
The loss in economic value of the financial interest, constituting insurable interest in the case of Adidas AG, which though had been computed with reference to loss of stock by the fire in the hands of the assessee, was distinct and separate from the insurance claimed by the assessee from the Bajaj Allianz.
Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19769 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since, the amount is in the nature of professional services sought by the legal professionals involved in the profession/occupation/vocation of arbitration, the amount is liable to TDS as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Act.
HAL Offshore Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19768 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194J
-
The amount received by the assessee from the 'HUF', being its member, is a capital receipt in his hands and is not eligible to income tax.
Shri Pankil Garg Vs The Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19767 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence and record and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
M/S. ROYAL RICH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19766 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79352&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.