-
An additional ground (relating to claim u/s 80-IA) cannot be permitted to be raised if the necessary evidence that the assessee is entitled to the claim is not on record. The fact that claim has been allowed by the AO in a subsequent year and that there is no reason why the claim should not be allowed in the present year is irrelevant. Also, the assessee must satisfy the appellate authority that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12679 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Transfer Pricing: An international transaction can be clubbed / aggregated with other international transactions if such transactions are closely connected with each other. The onus is on the assessee to establish the justification for clubbing the transactions. If the TPO has not applied TNMM at the entity level and has bench marked the royalty payment on standalone basis and not subjected the cost of production or other transactions to bench marking, the contention that when TNMM is applied at the entity level, there was no necessity of separate bench marking in respect of royalty transactions cannot be accepted
Kaypee Electronics & Associates Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12678 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that sale on 'going concern' basis is 'slump-sale' and not depreciable asset sale u/s 50(2).
CIT. vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12641 (SC) · Section. 50(2)
-
ITAT - In absence of a substantive order the AO was not justified in passing a protective order.
Nita Donald Sequeira Versus Income tax officer-17 (2) (4) (Formerly ITO-12 (2) (4) ), Mumbai.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12639 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55550&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The mere fact that the CIT is not in agreement with the view adopted by the AO, would not render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
Future Ideas Co. Ltd. Versus Principal CIT – 9, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12638 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55553&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT -As the funds for purchase of vehicles have been provided by the assessee company and they have been shown as assets of the assessee company. Hence, the assessee company should be considered as owner for all practical purposes and hence it is entitled for depreciation even where motor car registered in the name of the Director and not the company.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. Kaytee Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12637 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55555&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No revision u/s 263 in case of inadequate enquiry on the part of the AO for this is not a case of lack of enquiry.
Braham Dev Gupta Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12636 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee is not answerable to explain source of source of the fund u/s 68.
ACIT, CIRCLE-33 (1), NEW DELHI Versus SMT. PREM ANAND
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12635 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55558&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where AO has not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act to the assessee, the entire assessment proceedings then the assessment order in dispute is invalid, void abnitio.
ACIT, CC-9, NEW DELHI Versus M/s RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. and Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12634 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55559&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for addition on remission/cessation of liability as per the provisions of section 41(1)(a) because the income was merely estimated without finding any concealment.
Ravindra Nath Chatterjee Versus ITO, Ward 22 (1), New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12633 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55563&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Application for compounding of offences u/s 279(2) cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation or on the ground that application was not accompanied by compounding fees/charges prescribed by CBDT circular.
Vikram Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12631 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Section 44BBB is computational provision and hence, it cannot enlarge the scope of total income which is otherwise provided in Section 4,5, & 9 of the Income Tax Act.
M/s. ATOMSTROY EXPORT C/o NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Range 1 (1), Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12630 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55534&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - What has been transferred by the assessee is a right of allotment in the property and not the actual property itself and in respect of such rights, the deeming provisions of section 50C are not applicable.
Mrs. Rekha Agarwal Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (4), Jaipur
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12629 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55371&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) - Keeping in view the Principle of Natural Justice and to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on merit, it is appropriate to accept the appeal of assessee. There should be pedantic approach and the doctrine that is to be kept in mind that the appeal has to be deal with rational common sense and the cause of substantial justice must be kept in mind.
Mr. Vishwanath K. Acharya Versus ACIT Ward- 16 (1), Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12628 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55536&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though Explanation 2 of s. 147 authorizes the AO to reopen an assessment wherever there is an "understatement of income", the AO is not entitled to assume that there is "understatement of income" merely because the assessee's income is "shockingly low" and others in the same line of business are returning a higher income. The invocation of the jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of suspicions and presumptions cannot be sustained
Rajendra Goud Chepur vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12584 (HC-AP) · Section. 147
-
A disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even in respect of securities that are held as stock-in-trade by the assessee. However, the disallowance has to be computed by taking into consideration only those shares which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration
Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd. vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12583 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 14A
-
Capital gains: An amount received from a wholly-owned subsidiary in consideration of transfer of shares of the WOS to a group of shareholders is not taxable as capital gains. The Department cannot subject a transaction under the Gift-tax Act and also levy tax under the Income-tax Act.
CIT. vs. Annamalaiar Mills
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12582 (SC)
-
ITAT - Interest is disallowed in the hands of individual partner in respect of interest-free advances made to the firm, to the extent relatable to share of profit derived from firm which is exempt u/s 10(2A).
Vineet Maini vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12577 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
A question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage. Issues relating to initiation of s. 147 proceedings and/or service of notice are questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction. If an issue has not been decided in appeal and has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further appeal has been preferred (Sun Engineering Works 198 ITR 297 (SC) explained)
Teena Gupta vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12576 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Bogus share capital/ premium: The proviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on the issuing Co to explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit
CIT. vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12575 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.