-
In this appeal, we are concerned about the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, the circular of the CBDT dated 09.10.1984, should not have been applied, as by then the statutory direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 31.01.1998 was in vogue and held the field.
THE KUMBAKONAM MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19724 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79309&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a particular article would fall within the description by the force of the words used, it is impermissible to ignore the word 'description' and going by the usage of the equipment purchased by the assessee, a decision has to be arrived at.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19723 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79310&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The plain reading of Rule 83 makes it clear that the tax Recovery Officer or other officer, acting under the provisions of Schedule-II, are conferred with the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit for the purpose of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
MAULIKKUMAR VINODKUMAR PATEL VERSUS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19722 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79312&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time, the AO simply disallowed the above amount. This is despite the return being scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 VERSUS M/S. ALBASTA WHOLESALE SERVICES LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19721 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79313&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The payment of success fee was the obligation of the share-holders and since the company had discharged the same, AO had made addition u/s. 2(24)(iv) [with respect to the benefit derived by assessee-director] for the proportionate amount of payment made by the company.
Sri Danda Brahmanandam Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19720 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
Four years timeframe for completion of project, by no standards, can be said to be unreasonable, harsh, absurd or incapable of compliance.
Global Estates Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19719 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)
-
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Lt held in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, Ernakulam has recently taken note of all the earlier decisions including the decisions, which have been referred to by the Tribunal and the CIT(A) and held in favour of the Revenue.
KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19718 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79292&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no application of section 14A as far as the deduction under section 80A to 80U under Chapter VIA of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX VERSUS SURAT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19717 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79293&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee company was entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery which includes office equipment and vehicle, computer, computer software and furniture, fixture used for the purpose of business.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GUJARAT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TECH-CITY CO. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19716 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79294&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Findings recorded by the Tribunal are that AO declines to meet the specific points raised by the assessee in first appellate proceedings, there is obviously no point in challenging the conclusions arrived at in the first appellate proceedings based on vague generalities. No specific issues are raised in appeal before us.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS VAIBHAVLAXMI INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19715 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79295&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of law as proposed by the Revenue is squarely covered by the two decisions which have been referred to by the Tribunal in its impugned order. The principle of law as explained in the two decisions of this Court is that the retrospective amendment to any provision cannot be a ground for making re-assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS ARVIND MILLS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19714 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79297&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Stake money paid by assessee to horse owners for winning of races organized by it, is not liable to TDS under Section 194B or under Section 194BB and thus, assessee should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1).
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19713 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194B / BB
-
Payment received by assessee from Indian counterpart towards provision of IT Support services, doesn't constitute royalty / FTS under the Income-tax Act or under Article 13 of India-France DTAA, absent satisfaction of make- available condition.
Faurecia Automotive Holding Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19712 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Delay in construction due to the fault of the builder / promoter wherein the assessee has no control over the builder/promoter for such delay cannot be attributed to the assesse.
Sri Siva Ramakrishna Mulpuri Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19711 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
S. 4: The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed. Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts. The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant. The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account (All imp judgements referred).
The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19710 (SC) · Section 4
-
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: The decision of the authorities to demand payment of 20% of the disputed demand is in consonance with the department's circulars. There are no extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one imposed by the authorities. The contention that the assessee that he received no consideration and no tax could have been demanded from him is subject matter of the Appeal proceedings and cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal
Kalpana Ashwin Shah vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19709 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section220(6)
-
S. 80IB(10)(a): There shall be stay of judgement in Global Reality 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder
Global Estates vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19708 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)(a)
-
Language employed in Section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under Section 143(3) and the intimation issued under Section 143(1) and therefore, it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words “reason to believe” vis-a-vis Section 143(1) and Section 143(3).
M/S. TENZING MATCH WORKS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19707 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79280&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are finding of facts.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S SHIVHARE ASSOCIATES, SHRI GHANSHYAM RATHORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19706 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79281&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of fact recorded by the two revenue authorities is that the assessee offered the total unaccounted income of ₹ 9.29 Crores for the assessment year 2011-12 in his statement recorded during the search and seizure operation u/s. 132(4) of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT VERSUS VIBHUTI ORGANISERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19705 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79284&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.