-
For filing frivolous appeals and harassing taxpayers, heavy/exemplary costs to be imposed which will have to be personally paid by the jurisdictional CIT who sanctioned filing of the appeal
CIT vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9145 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the notice does not clearly specify whether the penalty is initiated for "concealment" or for "filing inaccurate particulars", it is invalid. Penalty should be imposed merely because the income has been offered to tax in a later year and not in the present year
Parinee Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9144 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Extrapolation: Fact that assessee admitted undisclosed income for one year does not mean that AO can assume that similar undisclosed income is earned in earlier years as well
Uday C Tamhankar vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9143 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 10A/ 80HHE: Claiming deduction u/s 80HHE for one year does not debar the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 10A for another year. Fact that claim is not made via a revised return is no bar on the right of the appellate authority to consider it
Pr. CIT vs. E-Funds International India Pvt Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9119 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10A, 80HHE
-
S. 271(1)(c): If the notice does not clearly specify whether the penalty is initiated for "concealment" or for "filing inaccurate particulars", it is invalid. Mere fact that assessee has surrendered income does not justify penalty if his explanation is not found to be false/ not bona fide
Hafeez S. Contractor vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9118 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
HC - Absent no pre-existing opinion on the issue subject to reassessment, re-assessment justified where assessee failed to disclose material facts.
Sword Global India Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9117 (HC-MADRAS)
-
AAR - Amount received for services rendered for procurement of goods by the a Chinese subsidiary of an Indian company is taxable @10% on gross basis as FTS under Article 12(4) of India-China DTAA.
Guangzhou Usha International Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9115 (AAR)
-
HC - Assessee (an educational institution)was under a bonafide belief that it was not required to file return u/s 139(1) as its entire income was exempt u/s 10(22)/10(23C). Therefore, surplus disclosed in its books of account cannot be considered as ‘undisclosed income’.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) Vs. ALL INDIA PERSONALITY ENHANCEMENT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9109 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Credit purchases are nothing but expenditure and if sundry credits are not proved, addition can be made by resorting to section 69C.
P.M. Abdulla vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9108 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 69C
-
HC - Figures in the accounts cannot be altered though by way of “regrouping”, once the audited balance sheet was signed by directors/auditors and submitted to statutory authorities including ROC.
CIT. vs Morgan securities & Credits Pvt Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9107 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - TDS u/s 194J is applicable on payment for customer support services by a telecom company being FTS.
Vodafone Cellular Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9106 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 194J
-
ITAT - Family arrangement is a valid mode of transfer. Capital gains addition deleted.
Kamal Bhandari vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9105 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
HC - AS-29 makes it explicit that no provision for a contingent liability can be recognized. Expense provision made without scientific basis disallowed.
Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9104 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Failure to pass draft assessment order renders Sec.143(3) order ‘erroneous’, subject to section 263 revision.
Gigabyte Technology (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9103 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Sections. 263, 143(3)
-
ITAT - The deeming provision of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) applies only to a case of "concealment of income" and not to a case of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"
Tristar Intech (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9091 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - In computing "capital gains" the AO is not entitled to substitute the "market value" for the actual "consideration" received by the assessee. He also cannot disregard the valuation report without cogent material.
Venus Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9090 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 48
-
ITAT - Show-cause notice under section 274 was defective as it did not spell out grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed.
H. Lakshminarayana v. Income-tax Officer
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9089 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41738&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Definition of royalty could not be applied to purchase of software by assessee, not liable to TDS.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. WS Atking India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9088 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=8607&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since working capital position of assessee was better as compared to comparables companies, therefore working capital adjustment was to be made in hands of comparables.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune v. Emptoris Technologies India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9087 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=8619&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee having participated in reassessment proceedings, writ challenging validity can't be filed.
Mobis India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Tax Payer Unit-II, Chennai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9086 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=62031&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.