-
HC - The director is required to be put in notice by formulation of the tentative ground as to why corporate veil should not be invoked and if justifiable ground proved, competent authority may form an opinion whether to lift veil or not. Director, cannot be called upon u/s 179 to pay outstanding public limited company dues without notice.
Ajay S Patel vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6309 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 179
-
ITAT - Once the purchases are accepted by AO and are duly accounted for in a particular year, the loss on account of fall in value of stocks represented by the said purchases cannot be rejected. Underlying principle for valuation of closing stock at cost price or market price, whichever is less, is that, following the principle of conservatism which is one of the foundational principles of accountancy, anticipated losses are to be taken into account while computing the business results
STCL Limited vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6308 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - At the time of giving effect to the majority view, it cannot normally be open to the Tribunal to go beyond the exercise of giving effect to the majority views, howsoever mechanical it may seem. Division bench cannot revisit adjudication.
Jupiter Corporation Services Limited vs DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6307 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT - Assessee, a distributor in SIM card sale of recharge coupons, is for TDS u/s 194H on discount / incentive payments to its dealers / retailers as the same is in in the nature of ‘commission’.
ITO. Vs. Jai Shree Enterprises
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6306 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 194H
-
HC - Rent received from income from unsold portion of the property constructed by assessee (a real estate developer), is chargeable under the head income from house property and not under business.
CIT. vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6305 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Even if Third Member's verdict is shown to be “unsustainable in law and in complete disregard to binding judicial precedents”, Division Bench has no choice but to give effect to it
Jupiter Corporation Services Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6304 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. S. 255(4)
-
HC - Immunity against penalty under Expl 5 to S. 271(1)(c) is available even if return is not filed provided a statement is made during the search, explaining the manner of deriving the income and due tax & interest thereon is paid
Kirit Dayabhai Patel vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6303 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. S. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Additional Depreciation - Assessee is entitled to depreciation in the subsequent year if the entire depreciation is not allowed in the first year of installation
M/s. MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6302 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - ITAT justified in extending period of stay of demand beyond 365 days in case hearing could not be taken up for reason not attributable to assessee
United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6301 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - The fact that suppliers names appear in the list of hawala dealers of the sales-tax dept and that assessee is unable to produce them does not mean that the purchases are bogus if the payment is through banking channels & GP ratio becomes abnormally high
ACIT. vs. Ramila Pravin Shah
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - Pendency of an appeal filed in the High Court u/s 260A is no bar to the maintainability of a MA filed u/s 254(2)
R. W. Promotions P. Ltd. vs. ITAT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6296 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections. 254(2), 260A
-
ITAT - Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law if the Revenue has not made any enquires to find out whether the AIR information was correct or not
Kroner Investments Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6294 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - No malafide intention of concealment as furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake as also there was no 'detection' by Revenue, concealment penalty on income addition on share application money is deleted.
Heranba Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6287 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Assessee-firm’s petition u/s 154 only prolonging the litigation in the guise of Rectification Applications in a different front and trying to unsettle the settled matters. One of firm's partner attempting to re-contest had already concluded block-assessment on firm.
Ahura Holdings vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6286 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
HC - Assessee eligible for Sec 80I benefit as none of the conditions stipulated therein prohibits assessee from taking industrial undertaking on hire and using it for manufacturing activity
Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6285 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 80I
-
HC - Section 14A to be strictly construed and AO to record satisfaction on the basis of clear and cogent material. No section 14A disallowance on the basis of general observations.
CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6284 (HC-P&H) · Section. 14A
-
HC - Lumpsum payment for procurement of technical know-how for use in the course of business is revenue in nature and deductible u/s 37.
Diffusion Engineers Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6283 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 37, 35AB
-
HC - FBT not payable by assessee for subscription payment to Tata Sons pursuant to contractual agreement of ‘‘Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement” to associate itself with the TATA name absent employer-employee relationship between the parties
CIT. vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6282 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Section 32(1)(ii) deduction was to be allowed on intangible assets such as customer base, list of material suppliers, process know-how, technical manpower for purpose of its two wheeler braking business, on acquisition of business by assessee.
Brembo Brake India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1 (1), Pune
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6281 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39923&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Whether or not advertisement or brand building expenditure should have been incurred for agarbatti and incense sticks was prerogative and right of assessee and AO could not question and challenge same. Disallowance u/s 37(1) not justified.
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi (Central) III v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6280 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=58650&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.