-
ITAT - Merely the tenant has raised some construction over the demised property would not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under section 24(a).
Premier Electrical Industries vs JCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11406 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section. 24(a)
-
HC - Writ Allowed - AO to grant refund due to assessee, despite issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2).
M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11405 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 143(ID)
-
HC - Writ Allowed - CIT has powers /s 119(2)(b) to condone delay on account of genuine hardship.
M/S. Beta Cashews And Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Income Tax Officer
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11404 (HC-KERALA)
-
ITAT - Assessee couldn’t pursue the case before the Tribunal due to non-receipt of the appellate order, therefore inordinate delay of 2255 days in appeal filed by assessee in the interest of justice.
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11403 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
SC - The only condition prescribed u/s 127 was to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the CIT had “unfettered” power under the machinery provision of transfer. Sec. 127 did not require the CIT to provide reasons for transfer.
Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11402 (SC) · Section. 127
-
ITAT - Cost inflation index for year 1981 to be adopted while computing capital gains on sale during AY 2007-08 of ‘inherited’ property.
ITO. vs. Sudip Roy
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11401 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 48
-
ITAT - There is nothing on record to suggest that the two companies are authorized for Inter-Corporate Deposits. Deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e). Additions confirmed.
ABIR Investments Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ACIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11400 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51847&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Once creditors are alleging that they have advanced money to the assessee, then, merely on surmises it cannot be inferred that they were not having any means. Addition u/s 68 deleted.
Late Suryakant Nemchannd Shah Versus ITO, Ward-3 (3) Ahmedabad.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11399 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51848&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Share premium cannot be brought to tax invoking the provisions of Section 68, unless there is a link with either quid pro quo transaction or investing by assessee-company in their accounts so as to receive it back as share capital.
M/s. Hariom Concast and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2), Hyderabd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11398 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51849&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - AO justified in rejecting books where claim of expenditure were based on the basis of self-made vouchers.
DCIT, Cir. 9, Surat Versus M/s. Krishna Corporation
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11397 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51851&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Once the expenditure has been accepted as genuine, there is no reason to doubt the same for the purpose of allowing deduction against business income.
ACIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry Versus Sri Ramalingeswara Rice & Oil Mill, Velpur
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11396 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51853&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No revision u/s 263 where though the order passed by the A.O. is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but it is not erroneous.
Sri T. Naga Mohan Reddy Versus ACIT, Circle-2 (1) , Rajahmundry
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11395 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51854&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Foreign exchange fluctuation can be linked to specific items and adoption of sales ratio as the basis for allocation of expenses across the board also does not appear to be correct.
M/s. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Circle-9 (1) (3), Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11385 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51839&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Without any further enquires in respect of the Bogus purchases, AO cannot make the addition u/s 69C by merely relying on information obtained from the Sales Tax Department.
ACIT – 25 (3) Versus Shri Vishal P. Mehta
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11384 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51841&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee failed to appear before the CIT, CIT cannot presume things which is in the minds of assessee, CIT has not rightly assumed his jurisdiction to revise the assessment order based on the information available on record.
Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar Versus ITO, Ward-1 (3), Visakhapatnam
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11383 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51844&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where price charged by the assessee in international transactions have not been computed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 92C, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) valid.
M/s. Clestra Life Sciences P. Ltd. (Formerly as Brahma Drugs P. Ltd.) Versus ITO, Ward 10 (3) (1), Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51290&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When big companies have contributed towards the programme carried out by assessee-society, it cannot be said that activities of assessee-society were not genuine. Registration u/s 12AA and exemption u/s 80G cannot be denied.
Institute of Road Safety and Fleet Management Society Versus Director of Income-tax (Exemption), New Delhi
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11381 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51097&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee has failed to discharge its obligation to verify the correct PAN. Demand of the differential TDS @20% valid.
Office of XEN, PHED, Jaipur Versus ITO, TDS-1, Jaipur
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11380 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51820&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Mere non compliance of summon cannot be the basis to make addition u/s 68.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32 (5), Versus SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11379 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51821&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Mere addition of part of the amount does not attract penalty for concealment.
K. Hemalatha Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11378 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51822&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.