-
S. 142(2C) Special Audit/ Interpretation of statutes: The AO who has fixed the time in the first instance must necessarily, as an incident of the authority to fix time, be entitled to suo moto extend time without an application by the assessee. The amendment by FA 2008 was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature. There exists a presumption of retrospective application in regard to amendments which are of a procedural nature
CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18019 (SC) · Section 142(2C)
-
S. 147 Reopening: High Court should decide (i) validity of s. 148 notice where assessment is made u/s 143(1) & not u/s 143(3), (ii) whether notice can be said to be based on change of opinion if there is no foundation to form any such opinion, (iii) Whether requirements of s. 148 are satisfied, namely, that it contains the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and furnishes the necessary details for assessing the escaped income and (iv) whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits is legally sustainable
PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18018 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Premium: No reason to interfere. SLP dismissed. High Court held there is no limitation on the amount of premium that can be charged. The AO cannot question the transaction merely because he thinks the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as share premium. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors to decide the premium and it is the wisdom of the shareholder whether they want to subscribe to shares at such a premium or not. S. 68 does not apply as the funds were received through banking channels and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors was established
PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18017 (SC) · Section 68
-
S. 43D Interest on NPAs: Even though the special provision in s. 43D for taxing interest income on NPAs on receipt basis does not apply to NBFCs, it does not mean that NBFCs have to offer interest on bad or doubtful debts to tax on accrual basis. Such interest is not taxable on the real income theory
PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18016 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43D
-
HC - Power of Tribunal to dismiss the Appeals for want of prosecution - Tribunal seems to have been contended by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution only and not touching the merits of the case at all and then further erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition filed for recalling the ex parte order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
SMT. RITHA SABAPATHY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18015 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77248&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 69C - Amount had not been expended by the assessee but was merely routed through the assessee, the question of debiting such amount to the profit and loss account did not arise.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VERSUS HINA ABHAY VASAVADA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18014 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77249&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Admission made by the Assessee in the statements recorded u/s 132 (4) was merely to the extent of payment of Capitation Fee and nothing about the source of such payment was disclosed, it does not mean that it could result in an addition ipso facto as Undisclosed Income without the corroborating material.
SHRI R. BHOOPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18013 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77252&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D of the Act of any amount is not permissible (Essar Teleholdings 401 ITR 445 (SC) followed, Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) approved)
PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17997 (SC) · Section 14A
-
S. 220(6)/ 281B Tax Recovery: Dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue. They should apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as binding decisions. The petitioner is being singled out for unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment
Milestone Real Estate Fund vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17996 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 220(6)/ 281B
-
S. 194H TDS: Payment gateway charges paid to a bank for swiping credit cards are in the nature of fees for banking services and not "commission" or "brokerage". Accordingly, no TDS is deductible from the said charges u/s 194H and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made (JDS Apparels 370 ITR 454 (Del) followed)
PCIT vs. Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17995 (HC-DELHI) · Section 194H
-
Articles 136, 141: Entire law on legal effect of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by a speaking/ non-speaking order explained. If the dismissal is by a speaking order & reasons are given, the same is a declaration of law which is binding under Article 141. The findings are also binding by way of judicial discipline. However, this does not mean that the order of the lower court has merged in the dismissal order of the Supreme Court
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17994 (SC)
-
S. 254(2)/ 271(1)(c): Though the High Court faulted the Tribunal's decision of reducing the penalty as a "way to bypass the minimum limit" and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
ITO vs. Devendra J Kothari
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17993 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 254(2)/ 271(1)(c)
-
S. 45(4): The revaluation of asset being land held by the partnership firm which results into enhancement of value of asset and this enhanced amount credited in capital account of partners and when a retiring partner takes amount in his capital account including enhanced value of asset, it does not give rise to Capital Gain under section 45(4) r.w. Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act
D.S. Corporation vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17973 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 45(4)
-
ITAT - Date of acquisition for computation of LTCG - Since allotment is not a conditional allotment and do not envisages cancellation of the allotted property, then the assessee has acquired right in a specific property on date of allotment - Subsequently, agreement of sale has been executed by the builder in assessee’s favor which was nothing but mere improvement in assessee’s existing rights to acquire a specific property and part & parcel of the same transaction.
ACIT-25 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17972 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40A(2) - Professional and fair conduct in earlier years should have been appreciated and not frowned to be treated as a ground to disallow fair and genuine payment under Section 40A(2)(a) read with Clause (b) of the Act. A provision which requires a just and fair approach by the assessee must be interpreted and applied in a just and fair manner by the authorities.
SIGMA RESEARCH & CONSULTING PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17971 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77179&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No challenge of reassessment in first round in clear terms before the authorities below is fatal and cannot be permitted to raise subsequently as an after-thought.
M/S. VIGNESWAR TEX VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (3), TIRUPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17970 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77180&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Penalty u/s 271D - The mere proof that the loans were repaid through cheques drawn in the name of the lenders or that there was no attempt to induct black money into the business, itself cannot be considered as a reasonable cause or as a compelling circumstance under which the mandate of Section 269SS can be violated.
LISTIN STEPHEN VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17969 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77181&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Substantial question of law - The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee being accepted by the Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribunal can be held to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises.
M/S. AMUTHAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COIMBATORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17968 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77184&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Sec. 50C would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset - Sec. 43CA was inserted w.e.f 1.4.2014 and was not applicable for AY prior to this date.
Zain Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer -18(3)(5) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17967 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43CA
-
ITAT - Reimbursements of salary and other costs on seconded employees to Foreign Group Co. constitutes FTS u/s.9(1)(vii), TDS u/s 195 applicable.
TS-171-ITAT-2019(CHNY)-Nippon_Paint__India__Pvt.Ltd_
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17966 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.