-
S. 92C(1) Transfer Pricing: Even if the assessee does not report the specified transaction & the AO has no occasion to notice it, the TPO has no jurisdiction to suo moto determine the ALP. He has to call for a reference from the AO. Alternate remedy is not a bar if the action is without jurisdiction & can be severed from the rest
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17929 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 92C(1)
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Merely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed (CIT vs. Dharamshi B. Shah 366 ITR 140 (Guj) followed)
PCIT vs. Rasiklal M. Parikh
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17928 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Merely because the investment was considerably large and several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through a Mauritius entity would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device. The assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source (PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) referred)
PCIT vs. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17927 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
ITAT - Labour expenditure related to wife - It is not new that family members helping each other in doing business in their proprietor-ship concerns. If some salary is attributable to them on their working, then it should not be doubted simply for the reason that those family members are not aware about the raising of bills in their names - Expenses allowed.
SHRI SHRIRAJ PANKAJ SHAH VERSUS ACIT, CIR. 5 (2) AHMEDABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17909 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=72157&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When assessee has deposited complete tax before the assessment is made, the penalty u/s 271AAA to that extent cannot be levied.
AVTAR SINGH KOCHAR VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17908 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=72160&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Depreciation at 80% was available in respect of simplicitor electricity/energy measuring meters and there was no additional requirement of such meters being energy saving devices.
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 5 (1), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17907 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=72158&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The objections raised by the petitioner on 20.12.2018 to the summary of reasons recorded provided by the AO has not been disposed of by a speaking order - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 not valid.
MPHASIS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17906 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The manufacture of a herbal product by a manual process with the use of some chemicals and small machinery (but least consumption of electricity) can also amount to manufacture or production of a different commercial article which is the basic requirement under Section 80IA.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17905 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77098&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - TP adjustment - In relation to a specified domestic transaction, the TPO can undertake transfer pricing study only in relation to those transactions which are referred to him under sub-section (1) of Section 92C of the Act.
TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17904 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77099&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - IDS being a complete code in itself, credit of advance-tax, self-assessment tax not available against discharge of assessee's liability to pay tax, surcharge and penalty under IDS Scheme.
Umesh D. Ganore Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17903 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Cash transactions in the current account of a company with its promoters, where such current account was a running one, could not be considered as loan or advances - No penalty u/s 271D.
M/S. SPACE N PLACE PROMOTERS P. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE 6 CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16908 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71155&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When the assessee already furnished return of income before the date of search and also declared long term capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c).
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. VERSUS RAJENDRA AGARWAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16907 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71158&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - If the plea of the assessee that in case of a non-filer of tax returns, assessments cannot be reopened on the basis of AIR information that assessee has made huge cash deposits in the bank account is accepted, then the provisions of section 147 and 148 in the statute will become redundant.
SMT. BILLO VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (2), MEERUT.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16906 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70797&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The word 'Tax’ includes penalty and interest and as the burden of proof is shown on the directors to prove that they were not negligent etc., then it follows that the directors can be held responsible to pay penalty and interest when the company was liable to pay the penalty and interest u/s 179.
NANDKISHOR KAGLIWAL, SHRIRANG S. AGARWAL, MOHAMMAD ZAMIR KHAN, VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16905 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76100&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - In case of proceedings u/s 158BD, not raising any objection in the first instance by the Assessee is fatal.
SMT. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16904 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76101&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) available with respect to funds given to subsidiaries where the interest free funds available to assessee were sufficient to meet its investment.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16902 (SC) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
HC - Deeming fiction u/s. 50C dealing with stamp duty valuation as sale consideration, would be applicable while computing capital gains exemption u/s. 54EC.
Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16901 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 50C, 54EC
-
S. 250: The CBDT should reconsider the direction in the Central Action Plan of offering incentives to CsIT(A) to enhance assessments and levy penalty. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the CIT(A) has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the CIT(A) there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16900 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
ITAT - Solely on the basis of the statement of one family member, the addition was made in the case of all the family members, which cannot be done.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI VERSUS SMT. SHIVALI MAHAJAN, SMT. RINKU MAHAJAN, SHRI JATIN MAHAJAN, SHRI NITIN MAHAJAN, SMT. ANILA MAHAJAN, SHRI LALIT MAHAJAN AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16899 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71137&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40(A) - It cannot be contended that merely because there was an Agreement between the Assessee Company and the partnership firm, the Research and Advisory fees made by the Company to the partnership firm, in which one of the Directors had a substantial interest, ought to be allowed wholly or partly as a business expenditure.
M/S. PATTERSON & CO PVT. LIMITED. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V (1) CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16898 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76072&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.