-
HC - Merely because there was some difficulty faced by the assessee in commencing the use of the premises it does not follow that the expenses claimed were not for the purpose of the assessee's business. If the expected fruits are not reaped from a business proposition, it will not be a basis to challenge the business expediency.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Versus M/s SRBS Entertainment
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14255 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70894&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) to be granted to a trust which runs a college that helps in enhancing the future of students by providing the education and making available the diploma courses in Polytechnic and Engineering and which are duly approved by AICTE.
Bhartiya Gram Sewa Niketan Udyog Mandal C/o. M/s. RRA Tax India Versus CCIT, Dehradun
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14254 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61554&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No disallowance of marketing & sales promotion expenses u/s 37(1) since the pharmaceutical company like the assessee is outside the scope of the circulars by the Medical Council of India or the CBDT.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-2 (1) , Pune
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14253 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61552&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ allowed - Sec. 197 does not do away with requirement of issuing a reasoned order while issuing a Certificate u/s 197. Cancellation order was non- speaking and requirement of natural justice was not met and assessee was provided no opportunity to seek copy of reasons recorded while issuing the certificate.
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited. Vs. The CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14249 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend: The term “shareholder”, post amendment, has only to be a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. One cannot be a registered owner and beneficial owner in the sense of a beneficiary of a trust or otherwise at the same time. The moment there is a shareholder, who need not necessarily be a member of the Company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the Section gets attracted without more. To state that two conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that the shareholder must first be a registered shareholder and thereafter, also be a beneficial owner is not only mutually contradictory but is plainly incorrect. Prima facie, Ankitech/ Madhur Housing is wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by larger bench
National Travel Service vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14241 (SC) · Section. 2(22)(e)
-
S. 145(2): Law on how revenue should be recognized by a developer of property under the “percentage completion method” in the light of Accounting Standards AS-1, AS-7 & AS-9, the Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions issued by the ICAI and several judgements on the issue explained
Vastukar Township Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14240 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section. 145(2)
-
S. 279(2): Entire law on the compounding of offenses u/s 276C, 277 read with S. 278D explained in the context of whether the CBDT Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable
Vikram Singh vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14239 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 279(2)
-
Bogus capital gains from Penny stocks: The fact that the appreciation in the value of the shares is high does not justify the transactions being treated as fictitious and the capital gains being assessed as undisclosed income if (a) the shares are traded on the Stock Exchange, (b) the payments and receipts are routed through the bank, (c) there is no evidence to indicate it is a closely held company and (d) the trading on the Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner
Pr CIT. vs. Prem Pal Gandhi
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14238 (HC-P&H)
-
S. 127(2) Transfer of case: The existence of agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. The agreement cannot be implied because S. 127(2) (2) (a) contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional CsIT. Absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement
Rentworks India Private Limited vs. Pr CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14233 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 127(2)
-
S. 68: If an admission of undisclosed income is made by the assessee after reference to the material found during search and seizure, it cannot be said that the admission is not based on incriminating material. The retraction of such admission of undisclosed income is not permissible especially when the retraction is by the mother and not by the assessee
Priyanka Chopra vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14232 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 68
-
Transfer Pricing: Important law explained on whether termination of Option rights under an agreement can be treated as a "deemed international transaction" under section 92B(2) of the Act read with Rule 10B (4) in the light of the judgements in Vodafone's own cases of the Supreme Court (341 ITR 1) and the Bombay High Court (385 ITR 169).
Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14221 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
S. 271(1)(c) penalty: Though capital gains was not disclosed in the return, if tax on the same is paid after the s. 147 assessment order is passed, there is no loss to the Revenue and it also shows the bona fides of the assessee and penalty cannot be levied. The fact that if the s. 148 notice was not issued, the assessee would have got away with tax evasion does not mean that his action was not bona fide
Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14220 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - There is no prerequisite of a formal trust deed for registration u/s 12AA/12A.
Sri Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt Vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14214 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections. 12AA, 12A
-
HC - When the employer abroad had paid the interest u/s 201(1A) for not deducting tax at source, then employee is not liable for interest u/s 234B.
John Baptist Lasrado vs. ITSC
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14213 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 234B
-
ITAT - Ror the purposes of section37(1) any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession.
DCIT, 1 (2) , Raipur Versus Hira Industries ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14212 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61435&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee is merely a professional association, which provides a platform for exchange of knowledge between its’ members, drawn from the relevant industry as well as to convey the developments and trends in the relevant field, therefore, assessee’s objectives fall under the ambit of advancement of general public utility.
FRP Institute vs. ITO(Exemptions)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14210 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 2(15)
-
ITAT - Use of trademark, trade name etc. in rendering of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion services is neither royalty nor FTS.
Reebok India Company vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14209 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 271(1)(c) penalty: If the AO has not recorded any satisfaction in absolute terms whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty is invalid. The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage cannot be read out of context or in a manner to mean that there is no need for mentioning the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty was intended to be imposed, as such issue never came up for consideration before the High Court
Indrani Sunil Pillai vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14205 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 2(1A)/ 68: An assessee who understates the consideration received for sale of agricultural land to avoid payment of stamp duty is defrauding the exchequer. He cannot take advantage of his own wrong and is estopped from contending that the amount received from the purchaser is a higher amount than was stated in the agreement. The incremental amount is assessable as ‘income from other sources’ and not as ‘agricultural income’. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for the said wrong claim
ACIT. vs. Mohinder Singh
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14204 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Sections. 2(1A), 68
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Conflict in law laid down by Bombay, Patna & Karnataka High Courts in Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom), Maharaj Garage (Bom), Samson Perinchery (Bom), Mithila Motors 149 ITR 751 (Pat) & Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning 359 ITR 565 (Kar) on whether the issuance of a s. 274 notice is merely an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty and mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion invalidates the notice or not explained. Impact of the conflicting law of the High Courts on Benches of the Tribunal in jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional States also explained
Jeetmal Choraria vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14193 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.