-
On a reading of the assessment order dated 17.03.2015, it is evidently clear that books of accounts and all the details were furnished to the AOr which was perused by the AO and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. ANUGRAHA VALVE CASTINGS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19619 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79086&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the Assessment Order, the orders passed by CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that the two Authorities below and the Tribunal, proceeded on the legal principle without making an in-depth study on the facts situation.
M/S. INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 2 (2), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19618 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79085&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a litigant raises a legal issue before a court or a tribunal as a principal ground of challenge and without prejudice and not in derogation with the said plea, the litigant is also entitled to raise alternate submissions.
M/S. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD II (5), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19617 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79090&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Exercise of sending the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment pursuant to the impugned order of the PCIT under Section 263 is not warranted.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 VERSUS M/S. FORUM AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19616 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79091&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
NCLT only examines whether the scheme is a lawful contract and does not examine the scheme minutely with a tooth comb.
Dalmia Power Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19615 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Since the amendment is prospective in nature, therefore Revenue's contention that amendment in Sec.149 is retrospective as its procedural in nature is rejected.
BRAHM DATT Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19614 (SC)
-
No positive material was brought on record by the AO to decline the explanation of the assessee with regard to receipt of cash during the year in respect of the cheque which could not be deposited in the bank account in the A.Y.2011-12.
MS. JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19613 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76244&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not brought anything on record to assess any income over and above the returned income filed by the assessee. AO in the assessment order could not bring into fore as to how the seized material has been analyzed and to prove as to how the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has arisen.
RISHABH BUILDWELL P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE GHAZIABAD. AND SANJEEV JAIN, 196, RAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE GHAZIABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19612 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76246&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is seen that the assessee had shown the shares as investment in the books of account and there was no trading activities. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held that it cannot be allowed as deduction for the purpose of computing the profit of the assessee.
SMT. CHANDRA RAMESH VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19611 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts as noted, are not seriously in dispute. The assessee’s share application money remained with its AE for a considerable period of time before the shares were allotted. AO, therefore, treated this transaction as one of loans.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 VERSUS M/S. STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19610 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79063&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Taxing notional rental income on legally 'unoccupiable' commercial property is declined.
Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19609 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
We are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and that of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were specifically relied upon by the counsel for the assessee during the course of the hearing of the appeal, therein constitutes a mistake apparent from record, which renders the order passed while disposing off the appeal in context of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254.
MUKUND LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 (2) (2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19608 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76225&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The DTAA clearly provided that the taxes in India means the income tax including surcharge there as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Clause 11 of the Finance Act 2018 clearly explains that the education cess is nothing but additional surcharge.
OC NL INVEST COOPERATIEF U.A, HYDERABAD VERSUS DCIT, INCOME TAX-2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19607 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76226&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO / CIT(A) has not made any negative/adverse remarks or finding against the aforesaid documents produced before the AO. However, they have brushed aside these documents and has relied heavily upon the general investigation report of the department, which has not found any wrong doing on the part of the assessee or her broker who sold the shares.
SMT. ANITA AGARWAL VERSUS ITO, WARD – 34 (3), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19606 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76227&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the approval given by the JCIT, Meerut is juxtaposed against the directions and provisions of the Income Tax Act pertaining to completion to assessment u/s 153B(1) of the Act, it can be said that the approval given by the JCIT is invalid.
RISHABH BUILDWELL P. LTD., R.G.V. FININVEST P. LTD., SHRISTHI COMPUTERS P. LTD. AND AGGARWAL CAPFIN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19605 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76228&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue intend to adjust the refund of earlier years or subsequent years. ITAT do not see any urgency of passing any order staying the outstanding demand at this stage, because, the application of the assessee for grant of stay is pending before the Pr.CIT.
M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) VERSUS DCIT, CIR. 2 (1) (1) VADODARA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19604 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76229&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 96- The exemption is complete if the compensation is paid under an Award after the owner is denied ownership/possession of land, building etc pursuant to compulsory acquisition under Act 30 of 2013.
MADAPARAMBIL VARKEY VARGHESE VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI AND UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19603 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79050&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254(1)/(2): The fact that the judges indicate a decision during the hearing or even dictate a judgement in open court gives no right to the litigant. Judges can change or alter their decision at any time until the judgement is signed & sealed. A MA on the ground that the ITAT Members stated a particular decision during the hearing but did the opposite in the order is not maintainable
Kamaljit Singh Prop. Dhanoa Brothers vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19602 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 254(1)/(2)
-
S. 292BB: If the assessee objects to the AO's jurisdiction but his AR later conveys no-objection, it means that the assessee has withdrawn his objection. Submission that the AR had no authority to convey no-objection and cannot bind the assessee is not acceptable. Once the assessee empowers his AR to appear before authorities, all of the AR's concessions are binding on the assessee (Himalayan Coop Group Hsg Soc 2015 7 SCC 373 distinguished)
K. S. Cold Storage vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19601 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 292BB
-
Capital vs. Revenue Receipt: Damages received for breach of development agreement are capital in nature & not chargeable to tax. The only right that accrues to the assessee who complains of breach is right to file a suit for recovery of damages from the defaulting party. A breach of contract does not give rise to any debt. A right to recover damages is not assignable because it is not a chose-in-action. Such a mere 'right to sue' is neither a capital asset u/s 2(14) nor is it capable of being transferred & is therefore not chargeable under u/s 45 of the Act (All imp judgements referred)
Chheda Housing Development Corporation vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19600 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.