-
S. 9(1)(vi): Though in Infrasoft 220 Taxman 273 (Del) the impact of the amendment to s. 9(1)(vi) on the question whether consideration received for sale of pre-packaged software was “royalty” or “fee for technical services” or "business income" was not examined, it is not required to be examined because u/s 90 (3) provides that the Act prevails only if it is more beneficial compared to the DTAA
CIT vs. Halliburton Export Inc
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10651 (HC-DELHI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
HC - Where issue was examined by the AO during original assessment, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment on this ground particularly after four years.
Adani Exports vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10650 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
HC - Very foundation of the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment fails. Reopening of assessment to make addition u/s 68 not valid.
M/s GUJARAT ECO TEXTILE PARK LTD Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10649 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65671&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The entire business of the stock broker constituted as one single composite indivisible business and therefore income or loss cannot be artificially bifurcated. Provisions of Explanation to Section 73 would not be applicable.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4, Kolkata Versus M/s. MPC Securities Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10648 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50216&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee is not able to get the title of the flat registered in his name or unable to get the possession of the flat, which is under construction. However, assessee has invested almost the entire sale consideration of land in purchase of this residential flat. Exemption u/s 54F allowed.
Mr. Rajeev B. Shah Versus The Income Tax Officer
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10647 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50215&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Even in cases where Revenue challenges orders before SC, there could not be any impediment in following the said decisions to cases arising out of similar set of facts and law.
CIT. vs. AL Logistics P. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10637 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80IA(4)
-
HC - No Sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance in respect of non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194C on freight charges reimbursed to the suppliers.
Hightension Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10636 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section. 194C
-
S. 254(2): In an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal cannot deal with the merits of the issue. The Tribunal must recall the original appellate order and refix the matter for hearing and pass an order u/s 254(1) of the Act
Safari Mercantile Private Limited vs. ITAT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10634 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 2(42A)/ 45: An agreement to purchase property merely creates a right to seek specific performance. The asset cannot be considered to be "held" from the date of the agreement so as to constitute long-term capital gains
Bindiya H. Malkani vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10633 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 2(42A), 45
-
ITAT - A.O. without pointing out any specific violations referred to in section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), simply rejected benefit of exemption. A.O. was erred in denying exemption u/s 11.
Sri Koundinya Educational Society Versus Addl. CIT, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10632 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49866&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No Set off of loss from settlement of forward contracts for foreign currency against income from ‘other sources’ as it a capital loss.
M/s. Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd. Versus Asstt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10631 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49814&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - AO being quasi judicial authority has not initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order. CIT u/s 263 cannot just substitute the authority of the AO with his opinion.
M/s Enfield Gems & Jewellery Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10630 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50046&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Consideration received on sale of rights to get conveyance of flat in favour is to be treated as capital gain eligible for claim exemption u/s 54F.
ACIT – 19 (2), Mumbai Versus Ms. Jenifer Noshir Sanjana
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10629 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50152&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Business Services Charges for providing Business Service Centre is income from Business and not from house property.
Jasubhai Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Cir. 3 (2), Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10628 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50153&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Capital gain arising on sale of immovable property in Colombo is taxable in India subject to double taxation relief.
Mrs. Shalini Seekond Versus Income Tax Officer, Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10627 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50154&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In case of purchase of agriculture land in the name of assessee's wife, exemption u/s 54B would not available in favour of the assessee.
Shri Kamal Kant Kamboj Versus The ITO, Yamuna Nagar
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10626 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50155&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - When entire claim was examined by the AO by calling upon the assessee to produce all supporting documents and materials. reopening of assessment cannot be allowed.
ARYAN ARCADE LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10625 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65643&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since the date of filing return of income and issuance of Sec 148 notice was prior to provisions of the Black Money Act coming into effect, the settlement applications were maintainable.
Arun Mammen and another vs. UOI and another
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10623 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - Neither AO nor CIT disclosed the basis of approval after the objection as raised by the assessee to the show cause notice u/s 142(2A) and hence order is a vitiated order.
M/s. Unitech Ltd. Versus Additional CIT, New Delhi And Vice-versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10622 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49897&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Payments to subsidiary cannot be treated as pass through cost as it is not the payment from A.E to subsidiary of the assessee.
M/s. Lason India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range-II, Chennai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10621 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49406&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.