-
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: The allegation that the Co is a penny stock co whose share price has been artificially rigged by promoters/brokers/operators to create non-genuine LTCG is not sufficient. The AO has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic. No specific enquiry or investigation was conducted in the case of the assessee and/or his broker either by the INV Wing or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The penny stock was also not subject to any action from SEBI (Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) distinguished, Fair Invest Ltd 357 ITR 146 (Del) followed)
Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19500 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on Intangible asset: Rights acquired under a non-compete agreement gives enduring benefit & protects the assessee's business against competition. The expression "or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights (Ferromatice Milacron India 99 TM.com 154 (Guj) followed)
PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 32(1)(ii)
-
S. 56(2)(vii)(c): The assessee's purchase of shares of NDTV Ltd at Rs 4 per share from RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd when the market price of the share was Rs 140 is a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii). The argument that as it is a transaction between closely related parties, there is no motive of tax evasion & s. 56 (2) does not apply is not acceptable. The assessee has failed to explain by credible evidence any reason of buying shares of the company at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price was Rs. 140 & so the assessee cannot say that there was no motive of tax evasion. Even otherwise, s. 56 (2) deems such differences/receipts as income
Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19498 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)
-
Bogus F&O Loss: Unusual & sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers was with an intention to evade taxes. In large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications. Thus, client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulations & shall go out of the protection granted by the circulars of NSE/SEBI (Rakesh Gupta 405 ITR 213 (P&H) & Ninja Securities followed)
Time Media & Entertainment LLP vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19497 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus Purchases: The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases. The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases (PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bom HC) followed
V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19496 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 143(1)
-
ITAT - Since playschool is not an integral part of the term 'education', as such registration u/s 12AA is denied to assessee.
Green Educational Society Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19489 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 12AA
-
Depreciation on Assets received by the assessee via transfer will be allowed, even though asset is not physically verifiable.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19488 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Religious trust is is eligible for Sec 11 exemption even though it had filed its tax return belatedly.
Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam & Charities Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19487 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 11
-
When property is beneficially owned by the company, capital-gains is not taxable in the hands of director.
Sanjay Jindal Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19486 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
As per Rule 11UA(2), deduction of revaluation reserve is not required while calculating FMV of shares .
Jupiter International Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19485 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
If one of the prescribed methods has been adopted by the assessee, then AO has to accept the same and in case he is not satisfied, then there is no express provision under the Act or rules, where AO can adopt his own valuation in DCF method or get it valued by some different Valuer.
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19484 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Dismissing the appeal in the guise of disposing of the same in a fast manner ('low-tax' appeal) would amount to burial of justice.
Faridha Begum Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19483 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - SEZ deduction claim u/s. 80IAB allowed however interest u/s. 14A disallowed.
DLF Limited Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19476 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80IAB
-
HC - The statutory condition imposed for availment of the extended period of limitation has not been satisfied in the present case and as such, the proceedings for re-assessment for AY 2011-12 are barred by limitation.
Asianet Star Communications Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19475 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - Upheld addition as fictitious loss being inflicted by manipulative client code modification by treating F&O loss as bogus loss.
Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19474 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 131(1A)
-
HC - Deduction u/s. 80IB - composite development of housing project - Combining two projects into one will lead to a result which manifestly will be unjust and absurd and defeat the very provisions of the deduction sections. Unless there is a clear intention of the legislature the Revenue cannot be permitted to do so.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NAGJUA DEVELOPERS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19473 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78909&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Cancellation of Registration u/s 12AA(3) - For cancellation u/s 12AA(3) is that the activities of the trust should not be genuine or the activities of the trust are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. There is neither an allegation in the impugned order nor finding that any of the aforesaid conditions exist in the case of the assessee. Order is quashed.
SHIVLAL ZADIADEVI JAN-KALYAN NIDHI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19472 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75891&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Deduction u/s 10AA - The onus is on AO to prove the presence of any arrangement between the parties which have resulted in extraordinary profits to the eligible unit. The AO could have, at least, brought variation in price of supply of commodity from different units on record to establish collusion/arrangement. The onus remains undischarged except for presence of suspicious circumstances.
M/S. SJR COMMODITIES AND CONSULTANCIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 8 (3) (2) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19471 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Upholds LTCG-addition on the ground that the assessee entered into complex agreements with the lenders to realize the sale consideration in guise of loans from lenders.
Radhika Roy Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19470 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
ITAT - Since It was only account of disallowance of the forex loss u/s 37(1) that the returned loss stood converted into positive business income and as a consequence, the assessee became eligible to claim deduction, therefore statutory bar provided in Section 80A(5) did not operate as there was no “failure” on the assessee’s part to claim deduction.
M/S. DIC FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 11 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19469 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75852&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.