-
HC - Sec 201(3) amended vide Finance Act, 2014 extending time-period to 7 years not retrospective in nature.
Tata Teleservices Vs. Union Of India
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9863 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 201(3)
-
Section 80IC: Despite substantial expansion there cannot be two initial Assessment Year
Sh. Sumit Kumar Vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9862 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 80IC
-
No Penalty for non disclosure of manner of Income, if same was not asked during statement recorded U/s/ 132(4)
DCIT. Vs. Shri Rajiv Chopra
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9861 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section. 132(4)
-
Search and seizure are reasonable cause for delay in filing & Payment of Wealth Tax
Loknath Prasad Gupta Vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9860 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Assessment completed by AO relying on estimations cannot be remanded back by CIT to reverify some aspects of estimation relied on
Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9859 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 40A(3)
-
Unilateral claim based on internally generated documents without any independent evidence cannot be allowed as business expenditure
DCIT. vs. M/s Leroy Somer& Controls (India) P. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9858 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Interest on TDS deduction default not sustainable, where tax liability of deductor is NIL
M/s. Anusha Investments Ltd. vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9857 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 195
-
Sec. 80P Principle of mutuality applies to Transfer fees, Non-occupancy/ Car parking charges
Lands End Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9856 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 80P
-
No addition u/s 41(1) for unclaimed stale Drafts / Pay Orders if liability to pay back not ceased
CIT. & ACIT. vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9855 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 41(1)
-
Penalty U/S 271(1) (C) Not Maintainable In Absence Of Proper Notice
M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT & DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9854 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 271(1) (C)
-
HC - Disallowance of commission payments made by the assessee based on uncontroverted statements made by the Chartered Accountant.
Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9849 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No sec. 271(1)(c) penalty for assessee’s failure to disclose interest on income- tax refund in revised return which was disclosed in original return.
GE Asset Management Incorporated vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9845 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s 10(23FB) available to a a SEBI registered VCF on its entire income. AO is not authorized to examine compliance with SEBI regulations.
DHFL Venture Capital Fund vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9842 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 10(23FB)
-
ITAT - AO to rectify glaring and apparent mistake in assessment order u/s 143(3).
ACIT. vs. Rupam Impex
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9838 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · Section. 154
-
ITAT - AO’s order without claim in respect of provision made for contingent liability, erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. Insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 2015 is declaratory & clarificatory in nature
Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9837 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 263
-
ITAT - Income from transfer of factory-land pursuant to a JDA entered with builder, assessable as “Capital Gains” and not “Business Income”.
DCIT. vs. Eveready Industries India Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9836 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 271(1)(c)/ 271(1-B): If the notice is issued without application of mind (by striking out the relevant part in the notice), the penalty proceedings are invalid
Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9835 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1-B)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) vs. Article 12 of DTAA: The retrospective amendment to s. 9(1)(vi) so as to supersede the law laid down in Asia Satellite 332 ITR 340 (Del) and assess transmission fees as “royalty” has no impact on assessees covered by DTAA because a corresponding amendment has not been made to the definition of “royalty” therein. Amendments to domestic law do not affect the DTAA
DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9834 (HC-DELHI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
HC - Amended definition of ‘royalty’ vide Finance Act 2012 will not impact the definition under the DTAA.
DIT. vs. New Skies Satellite BV
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9833 (HC-DELHI)
-
SC - Doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9832 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.