-
Imp law on theory of ‘preponderance of probability’ and to what extent it can be used to make adverse inferences and estimates of undisclosed income, the necessity of tangible material, the rejection of books of account and the scope of a best judgement assessment u/s 145(2) explained
GTC Industries Limited vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13332 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 145(2)
-
HC - Writ admitted - Interim direction issued to Income-Tax officer to allow petitioner to manually file Income tax return without insisting for Aadhaar/Enrolment no.
Prasanth Sugathan vs. Union of India
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13317 (HC-KERALA)
-
S. 80-IA: Difference between 'manufacturing' and 'production' explained. The word ‘production’ has a wider connotation in comparison to ‘manufacture’. Any activity which brings a commercially new product into existence constitutes production. The process of bottling of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as a domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it a viable commercial product
CIT. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13303 (SC) · Section. 80-IA
-
For purposes of filing a rectification application, the period of limitation of six months commences from the date of receipt of the order sought to be rectified by the assessee and not from the date of passing of the order
Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13302 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
S. 254(2): The amendment by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016 to specify the time limit of 6 months to file a rectification application applies even to applications filed with respect to appeal orders passed prior to the date of the amendment. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing a Miscellaneous Application
DCIT. vs. Hita Land Private Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13284 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 254(2)
-
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
CIT. vs. Diamond Dye Chem Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13270 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 145A
-
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts paid by way of reimbursement of expenses do not constitute income in the hands of the recipient. Consequently, the payer is under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194C and no disallowance of the expenditure can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). CBDT Circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995 distinguished
ACIT. vs. St. Mary’s Rubbers Private Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13269 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section. 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
Indermal Manaji vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13253 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 115JB: The AO is not entitled to add to the "book profits" the amounts arising from sale of land which are directly credited to the Capital Reserve Account in the balance sheet rather than routing it through Profit and Loss Account in the manner provided as per Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956
Pr CIT. vs. Bhagwan Industries Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13252 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 115JB
-
S. 254(2): The period of limitation for filing a rectification application is six months from the end of the month in which the “order is passed” and not from the date of “receipt of the order”. Even if a liberal view is taken, it can be considered as the date of uploading of the order on the ITAT website. The uploaded orders can be accessed by the assessee and constitutes service of the order upon the assessee
Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13244 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 254(2)
-
S. 50C: The AO is not entitled to make an addition to the sale consideration declared by the assessee if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and that declared by the assessee is less than 10%
John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13239 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C
-
S. 12AA(3): The CIT is not entitled to withdraw s. 12A registration on the ground that the activities of the trust are no longer charitable after the insertion of the proviso to s. 2(15). The registration can be withdrawn only if a finding is given that the activities of the institution are not genuine or that the activities carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution
CIT. vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13238 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 12AA(3)
-
GST on legal services: Finance Ministry directed to explain legal sanctity of Press Release dated 15th July 2017 that all legal services will be governed by Reverse Charge Mechanism. In the interim no coercive action would be taken against advocates providing legal services for non compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST, DGST, or IGST Act
JK Mittal & Co. vs. UOI (No. 2)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13235 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 69A: NDTV indulged in a clear cut case of "abuse of organization form/ legal form and without reasonable business purpose” and therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the AO in charging to tax Rs. 642 crores by re-characterizing the conditions according to its economic substance and imposing the tax on the actual controlling Indian entity. There is no doubt that the transaction used principally as a devise for the distribution/ diversion of sum to the Indian entity. The beneficial owner of the money is the assessee
New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13234 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 69A
-
S. 292C: Addition cannot be made on the basis of a document which is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question and does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 2)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13216 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
-
S. 292C: An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 1)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13215 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
-
S. 147: If the AO does not follow the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19, the reopening proceedings have to be quashed. There is no reason to restore the issue to the AO to pass a further/fresh order because it would give a licence to the AO to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the assessee by reviving stale/ old matters
KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13214 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
ITAT - Levy of penalty u/s 271D justified as the reasons given by the assessee that there is a business exigency in as much he needs to make the payment for purchase of landed properties, is not coming within the purview of reasonable cause as defined u/s 273B.
Y.V. Murali Krishna, Gudivada Versus ACIT, Range-1, Vijayawada
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13213 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56998&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - From the plain reading of 3rd proviso section 48 of I.T. Act, government securities are not excluded for indexation benefit only bond or debenture included in the third proviso to Sec.48.
M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13212 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=57004&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In absence of any commercial exploitation, payment to a foreign company for accessing database is not royalty under Article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA.
Kinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13211 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.