-
S. 271(1)(c): 'Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' and 'concealment of particulars of income' have different connotations. The failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice which of the two charges is applicable reflects non-application of mind and is in breach of natural justice as it deprives the assessee of an opportunity to contest. The penalty proceedings have to be quashed
Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12899 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Bogus purchases: In view of the Supreme Court’s order in Vijay Proteins Ltd vs. CIT whereby the verdicts of the Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd vs. Dy. CIT were confirmed, the AO has to accept the law and verify whether the transaction is genuine or not on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments
CIT vs. M/s Carpet Mahal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12898 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
ITAT - Capital gain computation - If the sale transaction in question is not registered with stamp value authorities, then full value of consideration has to be accepted as declared by the assessee.
Sh. Jastinder Singh Vedi Versus DCIT, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12897 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56173&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee was unable to satisfy the AO about three essential ingredients, viz, existence of lender, ability of lender to advance funds and genuineness of the transaction, therefore unexplained cash-credit addition u/s. 68 justified. Merely filing balance confirmation and details of existence of creditors doesn’t show that the transactions are genuine.
Pavankumar M Sanghvi Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12892 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - In case of JDA, land-transfer shall be taxable in the year of entering into the Joint Development Agreement and not in the year when constructed area was transferred.
ITO. Vs. Shri Shafiq Mohammed Shah
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12891 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 2(47)(v)
-
S. 69C Bogus purchases: (i) The AO is not entitled to treat the purchases as bogus merely on the basis of information from the sales-tax dept. He has to make independent inquiry, (ii) Fact that the vendors did not respond to s. 133(6) notices & the assessee did not produce them is not sufficient if the documentation is in order and payments are through banking channels
Geolife Organics vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12888 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: (i) The AO cannot ignore the documentation produced by the assessee to show that the investors are genuine, (ii) A s. 132(4) statement cannot be relied upon if the assessee is not give right of cross-examination, (iii) Fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) notices does not warrant an adverse inference, (iv) Fact that the shareholders have low income does not warrant adverse inference, (v) Assessee is not required to prove source of source
Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12887 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Supreme Court issues strictures against the income-tax department stating that it is "extremely unhappy" with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the SLP and demands that "The concerned authorities need to wake up"
CIT. vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12880 (SC)
-
HC - The mere fact that the interest u/s. 220(2) was 1.5 times the tax by itself does not have any relevance for determining whether the Assessee was suffering from any genuine hardship.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12870 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 220(2)
-
Bogus share capital: Fact that the investigation wing’s report alleged that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions and that the identity of shareholders, genuineness etc was suspect is not sufficient. The AO is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on the report of the investigation wing
CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12869 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 54/ 54F: There is no requirement that the investment in the new residential house should be situated in India prior to the amendment by the Finance (Nos.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015
ITO vs. Nishant Lalit Jadhav
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12868 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 54, 54F
-
ITAT - In the absence of registration of JDA the agreement does not fall under Section 53A of 1882 Act and consequently Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply.
The ACIT, Circle 4 (1) , Chandigarh Versus Shri Hardev Singh Arshi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12860 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56084&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Sale proceeds were not credited to bank account under capital gain account scheme but entire funds were invested in assessee’s business concern. It is a clear case of diversion of funds for business. Assessee's Sec. 54 deduction claim restricted.
R. Jayabharathi vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12859 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 54
-
HC - Sec.80HHD deduction should be granted qua eligible unit/units only. Revenue cannot draw support from Sec. 80HHC provisions and the two provisions (i.e Sections 80HHC and 80HHD) are not analogous.
CIT. vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12858 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 80HHD, 80HHC
-
ITAT - No TDS on remission of employee training expenses to overseas parent by an Indian company for payment to a overseas training agency (i.e. third party) as the same is not reimbursement.
Ershisanye Construction Group India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12857 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Cost of employment would include only internal costs incurred by organisation to employ individual, however any cost incurred over and above that to depute the individual for a particular assignment (i.e. travel, insurance etc.), would be external cost, not includible as FTS.
Gemological Institute International Inc. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12856 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Depreciation allowed despite TDS default on ‘capitalised’ software payment.
Wintac Limited vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12855 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as declaration of additional income by filing a revised return before initiation of re-assessment proceedings is valid.
Murli Dodeja vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12854 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 68 cash credit: If the assessee has explained the source of the loans received by it, the fact that the lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance the funds to the assessee does not mean that the loan received by the assessee can be treated as unexplained income. A statement recorded under duress, which is retracted later, cannot be the sole basis for addition
Anil Chhaganlal Jain vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12853 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
S. 56(2)(vi): A HUF is a "group of relatives". Consequently, a gift received from a HUF by a member of the HUF is exempt from tax as provided in the Explanation to s. 56(2)(vi)
DCIT vs. Ateev V. Gala
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12852 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(vi)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.