-
ITAT - Where the claim of the assessee that he was prevented by sufficient reason in not complying with the provisions of section 269SS, AO was directed to examine the entire issue after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Sri Venkateswara Reddy Kasireddy v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6998 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 269S
-
ITAT - Though AO was justified in entertaining doubt that the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending and the cheques have been obtained, only after the amounts were advanced. But, in the absence of any positive evidence in support of lending money to the persons, blank cheques can’t be treated as an unexplained investments.
Sri Laxmi Narayan Agarwal v. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6997 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - Rectification order passed in a hasty manner, without giving hearing to Assessee, is clearly against the principles of natural justice.
Shri Sanjay Gupta v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6996 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient and the payments are not governed by the provisions of section 194C.
Shri M/s. Cipro Pharmaceuticals v. A.C.I.T.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6995 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 194C
-
ITAT - Since assessee did not have accumulated profits, which is one of the conditions for invoking section 2(22)(e), advance received can’t be termed as a dividend U/s. 2(22)(e).
Shri Ch. Krishna Murthy v. D.C.I.T
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6994 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 2(22)(e)
-
ITAT - All transactions in different bank accounts are required to be taken in consideration by AO during assessment proceedings.
Shri Sama Srinivas Reddy v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6993 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - Assessee (a contractor) cannot be compelled to comply with the condition or fulfill the condition which was not stipulated at the time of sanction of the project, reopening cannot be allowed if there is any subsequent change in Law.
ACIT. V. Sahara States
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6992 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 147
-
ITAT - Where order u/s 263 has been passed without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind, matter should be remitted to the CIT(A) and directed him to pass fresh orders u/s 263.
Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta v. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6991 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 263
-
ITAT - HUF would come under the purview of “relative” and Assessee would not be liable to tax u/s 56(2).
Mr. Biravelli Bhaskar v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6990 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 56(2)(vi)
-
ITAT - For ALP adjustment, marketing & liasoning services cannot be equated with advisory services.
M/s Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt., Mumbai Vs. DCIT – 2(1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6989 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - S. 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously.
DCIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6988 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 254(2A)
-
ITAT - Where books of account were rejected but detailed scrutiny of sundry creditors was not done , no sec. 68 additions.
Sahani Transport Corpn. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6987 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39669&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - DTAA between India and UAE - Arranger fee paid to bank for mobilizing deposits is not 'FTS' and not liable to TDS since said fee was not a fee for managerial or technical or consultancy services as per section 9(1)(vii) but merely commission.
Mashreq Bank psc v. Joint Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)- 3 (1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6986 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41420&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amendment introduced section 254(2A) by virtue of Finance Act, 2008, with effect from 1-8-2008, which added words 'Even if delay in disposing of appeal is not attributable to assessee' has to be struck down being violative of article 14 of Constitution of India.
Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6985 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61159&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - ITAT has power to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days if delay in disposing appeal not attributable to assessee.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - TDS Circle v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6984 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61364&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Belated payment of employee's contribution to PF (after due date of PF) even though paid before due date of filing return, cannot be allowed as deduction in view of provisions of Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) and section 43B.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin v. South India Corporation Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6983 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61363&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where during search Cash deposit was surrendered and also reflected in WT return, same could not be held as unexplained.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Joginder Paul
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6982 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39998&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Where assessee purchases a new asset, which is habitable but requires additions, alternations, modifications and improvements, cost of additions or improvements on habitable house will be eligible for sec. 54F relief.
Mrs. Rahana Siraj v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bangalore
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6981 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61362&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Set-off of business loss pertaining to AY 1997-98 against profits for AY 2004-05 allowed as there was no change in beneficial ownership u/s 79.
GE India Industrial Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6980 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 79
-
ITAT - 'Property of any kind held' as per definition of 'capital asset' in section 2(14) means property legally held by assessee and not property illegally encroached by him. Profit arising on its sale is taxable as income from other source.
Income-tax Officer, 21(3)(1), Mumbai v. Bhagwan T. Fatnani
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6979 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41408&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.