-
ITAT - Approval to the assessment order granted by the Addl. CIT in a casual and mechanical manner and without application of mind renders the assessment order void
Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8743 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 153A, 153D
-
ITAT - Keyman Insurance [S. 10(10D)] - Even a "United Linked Endowment Assurance Plan" with the main object of guaranteed returns rather than life insurance is a "keyman insurance" as defined in s. 10(10D). The fact that policy was not termed as a "keyman insurance" and the fact that the IRDA Guidelines disapproved the issue of such policies is irrelevant.
Suri Sons vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8742 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 10(10D)
-
HC - Merely because the assessee made a claim which was not acceptable ipso-facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s G.K. Properties Private Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8734 (HC-AP) · Section. 271 (1) (c)
-
ITAT - The fact that there was undervaluation of the value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty, was irrelevant issue to the question of allowing deduction u/s 54F. Exemption benefit u/s 54F to assessee on entire amount of investment in new house.
S. Tejraj Ranka vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8719 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 54F
-
ITAT - Indian subsidiary of UK company engaged in the business of providing news and financial information does not constitute assessee’s dependent agent PE or service PE in India by virtue of entering into a distribution agreement.
Reuters Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed reassessment as Sec 148 notice invoking Sec 149(1)(c) was barred by limitation absent foreign asset.
ITO and Ors.vs. Deccan Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8717 (SC)
-
ITAT - Comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible. Assessee cannot be asked to prove something which is beyond its control
DCIT. Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8716 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction.
ACIT vs. M/s Venus Jewel
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8715 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 29, 37(1)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that the assessee is required to disclose full and true material facts and need not explain or interpret the law. Legal inference has to be drawn by the Assessing Officer from the facts disclosed by the assessee
CIT. vs. Cray Research India Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8714 (SC)
-
HC - In view of Explanation 3 to Sec 153(3), excluded income of original assessee, can be assessed in the income of third party (i.e assessee), if third party was heard by the Authority making observations or issuing direction that excluded income is of third party. Sec 148 notice was time-barred as assessee was not heard by Authority issuing directions.
CIT. vs. Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8713 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section. 148
-
ITAT - Profit arising on transfer of capital asset to its wholly owned Indian subsidiary company is liable to be excluded from the Net profit. Said profit does not fall under the definition of “income” at all and since it does not enter into the computation provisions at all, there is no question of including the same in the Book Profit as per the scheme of the provisions of sec. 115JB.
Shivalik Venture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8712 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Once a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued for the purpose of making re-assessment, the earlier proceedings get reopened and where the re-assessment under Section 147 is done, the initial order of assessment under Section 143 (3) ceases to be operative.
Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8711 (HC-AP)
-
ITAT - The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assesese is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income Tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
Shri Som Dutt v. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8710 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Non-furnishing of any explanation itself will lead to Penal Consequences u/s 271(1)(c). After introduction of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no burden on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has concealed the particulars of Income.
Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8709 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
HC - All authorities, civil, criminal and judicial, coming within the territory of the High Court, shall act in the aid of the High Court. AO not authorized to take contrary views taken by other High Courts if same issue is decided by jurisdictional High Court.
Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)-I Chennai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8700 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61447&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since no demand was raised pursuant to the reassessment order, assessee did not file any appeal, therefore delay of 331 days in filing appeal before CIT(A) is condoned.
CIT. vs. Prakash B Nichani
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8699 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 263
-
HC - It is sufficient that assessee incurred expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research and there is no requirement that such an expenditure should be capitalised in books to avail deduction u/s 35.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8698 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60930&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Withdraws adverse remark against ICAI and its members.
Vijay V. Meghani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir. 23(3), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8697 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=42586&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Satisfaction can be said to be a borrowed satisfaction from another officer which in absence of any application of mind and any real finding in case of assessee does not constitute valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.
Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8696 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since contract manufacturers were carrying out manufacturing activity for assessee and it was in assessee's business interests that all tax liabilities of manufacturers were duly satisfied, by assessee, payment of additional excise duty on behalf of contract manufacturers allowed as business expenditure.
Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8682 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61243&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.