-
HC - Assessee was seeking to carry forward accumulated loses u/s 74 when admittedly it had not filed any return of income, claiming loses for the earlier Assessment Year under the Act and it was not an Assessee under the Act - AAR justified in answering the question in negative.
ABERDEEN INSTITUTIONAL COMMINGLED FUNDS LLC VERSUS THE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX), MUMBAI, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1, MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16808 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75946&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The action of the AO to pass the final order of assessment even before the period of four weeks had expired, cannot be approved.
M/S. ANKUR POWER PROJECT PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 15 (1) (1) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16807 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75948&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Scope for initiating special audit u/s. 142(2A) has been widened w.e.f. 1.6.2013 whereby such powers can be exercised in several situations.
Multi Commodity Exchange of India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16806 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 142(2A)
-
S. 37(1)/40A(2) Business expenditure vs. sharing of profit: The AO has to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and determine what amount forms part of the profit. Whatever is the profit component is sharing of profit/distribution of profit and the rest is deductible as expenditure
CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16805 (SC) · Section 37(1)/40A(2)
-
S. 147/148: If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts
Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16804 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147/148
-
HC - Settlement Commission does not have to invalidate application for settlement u/s 245D(2C) with retrospective effect.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , PUNE VERSUS INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ADDL. BENCH - I, MUMBAI & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16803 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75929&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Reopening of an assessment has to be done by an AO on his own satisfaction. It is not open to an Assessing Officer issue a reopening notice at the dictate and/or satisfaction of some other authority (DDIT (Inv).
SOUTH YARRA HOLDINGS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER 16 (1) (1) (4) MUMBAI & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16802 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75930&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - amount received by a partner on his retirement and the partnership firm is not subjected to tax in the retiring partner's hands in view of Section 45(4). The liability, if any, to pay the tax is on the partnership firm in view of Section 45(4).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL – 2 MUMBAI VERSUS SMT. HEMLATA S SHETTY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16801 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75932&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares transactions; (ii) make-believe nature of paper work; (iii) Camouflage the bogus nature; and, (iv) the relevance of human probabilities etc (NDR Promoters 410 ITR 379 (Del) referred)
Shamim Imtiaz Hingora vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16791 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 10(38)
-
S. 226 illegal Recovery - Strictures against DCIT: High Court was not justified in its remarks against the DCIT and in issuing directions that (i) ‘deadwood’ should be weeded out (ii) personal costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh should be imposed (iii) adverse entry should be made in the Annual Confidential Report (iv) Denial of promotion etc. The directions were wholly unnecessary to the lis before the Court & are expunged
Sanjay Jain vs. Nu Tech Corporate Service Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16772 (SC) · Section 226
-
S. 80-HH/ 80-I/ 80-AB: There is a difference between 'income' referred to in s. 80-AB and 'profits & gains' referred in s. 80-HH/80-I. Deduction u/s 80-HH/ 80-I has to be computed on the ‘profits and gains’, without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’ & not from ‘income’ as computed under the Act. S. 80AB is prospective. Motilal Pesticides 243 ITR 26 (SC) reversed
M/s Vijay Industries vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16771 (SC) · Sections 80-HH/ 80-I/ 80-AB
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny especially in private placement of shares. Filing primary evidence is not sufficient. The onus to establish credit worthiness of the investor companies is on the assessee. The Assessee is under legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee
PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16764 (SC) · Section 68
-
HC - Revision application was filed seven years later. By no stretch of imagination, such long period can be ignored. The petitioner simply, cannot take shelter of non-communication of the intimation or acceptance u/s 143 (1) - Revision petition u/s 264 not admitted.
SHAM ANAND SALUNKHE VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AND 4 AND UNION OF INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16756 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75874&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Contribution made by the employer to the Death Relief Fund is also an allowable business expenditure in terms Section 37 in so far as the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the welfare of its employees and is for the purposes of the business.
M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16755 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75861&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - When a notice is issued pursuant to a search under Section 132, for assessment under Section 153A, all pending proceedings with respect to a regularly initiated assessment or re-assessment would stand abated.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR VERSUS SHRI. K.P. UMMER, PROP. STAR ROLLING MILL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16754 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75863&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Advance for rent never turned into income as recovery had been barred by limitation. To be treated as an income from the business but could not have been treated as an unexplained cash credit or as an unexplained investment, since the source was clear and there was proper explanation for the amounts as seen from the books of accounts.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN, COCHIN VERSUS M/S. AMRITHA CYBER PARK (P) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16753 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75864&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 68, 69 and 69A - Since there is no explanation offered as to the source or destination of the amounts which came into the bank account there is no illegality in making addition of the peak credit.
K.P. ABDUL MAJEED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLECIRCLE-I (1) , CALICUT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16752 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75865&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - There was no accrual of the expenditure in the earlier year had not become due. It became due only in this year - Claim of expenditure pertaining to earlier year is duly allowable in this year.
PR. CIT-2, KOLHAPUR VERSUS ECO CANE SUGAR ENERGY LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16751 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75866&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Exchange gain on account of restatement on foreign loan would be a part of core activity of the shipping company entitled the benefit of Chapter XII-G of the Act.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. M. PALLONJI SHIPPING PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16750 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75868&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Allowed - Instead, waiting for the time till the two members who decided the first ITAT orders were not available and choosing to prefer the rectification application at a convenient time, the assessee no doubt technically was compliant, but stood exposed to the odium of forum shopping. Imposes cost on assessee.
N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd Vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16749 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.