-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Though, after Maxopp Investment 402 ITR 640 (SC), even "strategic investments" have to be considered for disallowance, the assessee is entitled to contend that the investments are "legacy" or "one-time" and that there is in fact no expenditure incurred to earn the tax-free income
CIT vs. Alpha G. Corp Development Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19253 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
Natural Justice: The assessee cannot be kept in the dark. Adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes. If the AO intends to use it to draw adverse inference/finding, the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. Failure to do so is a serious flaw which renders the assessment a nullity (All imp judgements referred)
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19252 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: U/s 101 of Evidence Act, 1972, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the LTCG is genuine. The assessee cannot, on failure to establish a prima facie case, take advantage of the weakness in the AO's case. The jump in the share price of a company of unknown credentials cannot be an accident or windfall but is possible because of manipulations in a pre-planned manner by interested broker and entry operators. The LTCG transactions are a sham
Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19251 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
ITAT - Consultancy fee paid to non-resident for the professional services rendered outside India (as export); not taxable in India u/s 9(1)(vii).
Indo Colchem Ltd Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19250 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 9(1) (vii)
-
Payment made by Indian subsidiary to assessee (the Netherlands company) for rendering management services is not FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA since 'managerial services' are outside purview of FTS definition under DTAA.
Hyva Holding B.V Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19249 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
For claiming higher rate of depreciation of 80%, assessee has to prove that the STB's are energy saving devices being electrical equipment.
Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19248 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
In order to obtain registration u/s. 12AA only objects of the assessee trust is to be examined, therefore simply non-maintenance of separate books cannot be a ground for rejection of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
Barnabas Hospital Vs CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19247 (ITAT-RANCHI) · Section 12AA
-
No infirmity does emerge from the determining of the FMV of the shares by the assessee company as per the recognized method of valuation i.e 'discounted cash flow method'.
M/s Enterprises Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19246 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Deduction u/s 80IB or for that matter any other section under chapter VI-A of the Act is not allowed adjustment.
Gee City Builders P.Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19245 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 80IB(10)
-
With a view to overcome the same, clause (i) was added to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB with retrospective effect from AY 2001-02 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which provided that the Book Profits should be increased by the amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset.
Bobcards Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19244 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 80P(4): The AO is not obliged to grant deduction by merely looking at the certificate of registration issued by the competent authority under the Co-op Societies Act. Instead, he has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not. Chirakkal 384 ITR 490 (Ker) overruled. Antony Pattukulangara 2012 (3) KHC 726 & Perinthalmanna 363 ITR 268 (Ker) approved. Citizen Co-operative Society 397 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19238 (HC-KERALA) · Section 80P(4)
-
The ICAI has jurisdiction to examine any conduct (including alleged sexual harassment) by a CA that would tend to bring disrepute to the profession or the Institute. The fact that the matter is pending trial before the Criminal Court is not relevant because the standards of proof are different. The ICAI may or may not await the outcome of the trial depending on the circumstances (Gurvinder Singh 259 TM 311 (SC) followed)
Lalit Agrawal vs. ICAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19237 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No addition u/s 68 as prima facie the case of the assessee shows that there is double taxation, once the source of income and secondly the application of income.
M/S SURYA PROCESSED FOOD PVT. LTD., M/S SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19236 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75082&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Specified persons u/s 13(3) have devoted full time to the educational institution to the best of their knowledge, ability and experience and AO did not bring any evidence on record as to how the salary paid to these persons with reference to their qualification was excessive or unreasonable, therefore no addition.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19235 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - TP Adjustment - The comparison has to be region /country specific, which in this case, the TPO has completely ignored.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 VERSUS M/S AUDCO INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19234 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78618&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Assessment order indicate that the AO has made enquiry on various issues as such order cannot be said to be “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue".
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR VERSUS M/S HARI OM STONES, C/O-SHRI OM PRAKASH SHARMA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19233 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78621&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction was not clear and even the lenders summoned by the AO had not submitted their income tax returns. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 was sustained.
SATLUJ SHIKSHA SAMITI, BERLI KALAN, REWARI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19232 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78622&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Allotment of immovable property by assessee-firm to retiring partners towards their share in partnership on retirement is not transfer u/s 45(4).
National Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19231 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 45(4)
-
ITAT - Payment of incentive bonus was dependent upon the performance of employees and also it was not a case of statutory bonus payment under the Payment of Bonus Act, hence rules that Sec.43B was inapplicable.
Harita NTI Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19230 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 43B
-
ITAT - (i) Taxability of an amount received by a partner on retirement from firm explained. (ii) Excess payment to a retiring partner over and above the sum standing to the credit of his capital account at the time of retirement should be treated as capital gains.
Savitri Kadur Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19229 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.