-
ITAT - Loss suffered as a result of non-recovery of deposit given for gas and electricity was a loss incidental to the business of the assessee.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10269 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10385&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194D on Service Tax element in respect of ‘insurance commission‘.
DCIT (TDS) -3 (2) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10268 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194C where assessee made the payments on behalf of its clients as there is no liability to deduct tax at source on the assessee.
Income Tax Officer Ward–12 (1) (1) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Rajeshwaree Shipping & Logistics
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10266 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=49328&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Merely because education is provided at cost does not result in the Society ceasing to carry on its activities for a charitable purpose u/s 2(15).
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [EXEMPTIONS] HYDERABAD Versus THE I.D.R.B.T, HYDERABAD
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10263 (HC-AP) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65348&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Payment to landlord for his consent to the reconstruction of the building is Revenue in nature.
Khaitan Hotels Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax - III, Kol.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10262 (HC-CALCUTTA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65352&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147: Non-furnishing by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment results in violation of the law laid down in GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19 (SC) & renders the reopening void
Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10258 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 147
-
S. 147/ 148/ 153C: A case where the AO detects incriminating material in search has to be processed only u/s 153C and not u/s 147. A notice u/s 148 to assess such undisclosed income is void ab initio
Rajat Saurabh Chatterji vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10257 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148, 153C
-
S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on income disclosed in a search instead of u/s 271AAA is not sustainable
Ashwani Kumar Arora vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10256 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 271(1)(c), 271AAA
-
(i) Important law laid down on applicability of transfer pricing provisions to non-AEs, Law on (ii) deductibility of unpaid service-tax u/s 43B and (iii) carry forward of losses of amalgamating company u/s 72A and Rule 9C explained
DCIT vs. Alstom Projects Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10255 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43B
-
HC - No interest u/s 234A on self-assessment tax paid before due-date of furnishing tax-return.
Suresh Sharma vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10254 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 234A
-
HC - Higher depreciation @ 60% allowable on LAN/WAN equipments being computers’ essential part.
Principal CIT. vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10253 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Compounding fees paid to RBI for regularising ECB is not covered by Explanation to Sec. 37(1) & is deductible.
EON Hadapsar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10252 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
SC - Where assessee was ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking, IT Department to take steps for recovery of tax.
DGIT vs. GTC Industries Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10251 (SC)
-
CIT was justified in treating the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as there was or could be a case of money laundering which went unnoticed because the AO did not hold requisite investigation.
Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Principal CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10250 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 263
-
HC - Order u/s 143(3) read with Sec 144C was not passed within the prescribed time-limit as Revenue could not prove service of final assessment order u/s 144C on assessee.
ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ORS.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10249 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - ‘Fringe-benefit’s’ defined u/s 115WB (under Chapter XII-H relating to fringe benefit tax cannot be imported for perquisite u/s 17(2).
All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs Union of India, The Central Board of Direct Taxes
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10248 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 17(2)
-
S. 263: Even if the AO has conducted an inquiry into the taxability of share capital receipts u/s 68, the CIT is entitled to revise u/s 263 if the AO has not applied his mind to important aspects. Law in Lovely Exports 299 ITR 268, Sophia Finance 205 ITR 98 etc does not apply as they are prior to the Money Laundering Act 2002. Qs whether receipt towards share capital is taxable pre s. 56(2)(viib) & whether proviso to s. 68 is retrospective are left open
Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10247 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 263
-
HC - ITAT has powers to grant stay beyond 365 days
Pr. CIT. vs. Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10246 (HC-P&H)
-
HC - Sec. 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) of the IT Rules constitutionally valid. Pegging perquisite valuation (bank employees' concessional loans) to SBI-rate not 'hardship'.
All India Union Bank Officers Federation vs. Union of India
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10245 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 263: There is doubt whether Explanation 2(a) to s. 263, inserted by FA 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 has retrospective effect. The said Explanation does not override the law that the CIT cannot fault an assessment order without conducting his own inquiry or verification to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law
Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10244 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.