-
HC - Since S.127 was a machinery provision, CIT is having power of transfer even without assigning any reason.
CIT vs. Noorul Islam Educational Trust
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5955 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 127
-
HC - Assessee developing housing projects of IRWO & DDA on a turnkey contract is entitled to deduction u/s S.80-IB(10). Explanation to S.80-IB(10) not retrospective
CIT vs. VRM India Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5954 (HC-DELHI) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
ITAT - MCA regulation could not be applied in relation to transaction of the assessee with its AE, which is in foreign currency and its ALP should be evaluated as per LIBOR rates. Thus, delay in disbursal of share application money by AE would attract interest at LIBOR.
Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 3(3), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5935 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40128&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Regional Director is not only entitled to but is duty bound to bring to the attention of the Court any provision in the scheme of amalgamation which may contravene/circumvent the provisions of any law including the law pertaining to Income Tax. Reliance on MCA Circular dated January 15, 2014 is rejected since Income Tax Authorities did not raise any objection within 15 days of notice.
Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5934 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Commissioner’s order granting or rejecting approval for purposes of S.80G, being passed beyond the period prescribed of six months under Rule 11AA of the I.T. Rules, 1962, is invalid.
Maheshwari Foundation vs. DIT (Exemptions)
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5933 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 80G
-
ITAT - Payments to banks for utilization of credit card facilities, is in the nature of bank charges and not in the nature of commission, therefore no TDS u/s 194H.
ACIT vs. Trident Automobiles P Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5932 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 194H
-
ITAT - The length of delay is not a material to condone the delay, the cause of delay is to be considered to condone the delay
C. Jegaveerapandian vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5912 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - Liability cannot be imposed on assessee in respect of a past transaction on strength of subsequent amendment to Act with retro effect. Legal position prevailing at payment-date relevant. Payment to Foreign parties for monitoring, supervision of discharged cargo, not FTS for AY 2010-11. No Sec 40(a)(i) disallowance.
ACIT vs. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5911 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
ITAT - Activities of making pizza qualify as "manufacture and production of article or thing". Additional depreciation allowable.
ACIT vs. Gamma Pizzakraft (P) Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5910 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not only qua the misstatement of fact/s but also of law. Penalty confirmed in case rental income returned as ‘income from house property’ as against ‘business income’. Plea of mere ‘differential treatment’ rejected.
Shubhmangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5909 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
HC - S.271(1)(c) does not compel Revenue to initiate penalty proceedings in all cases where findings were adverse against the assessee at a given point of time.
CIT vs. Jain Export Private Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5908 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
HC - Assessee not entitled to depreciation on part of share issue expenses, capitalized to plant and machinery and factory equipment covered by S.35D.
International Computers Indian Manufacture Limited vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5907 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 35D
-
HC - As per CBDT guideline, employer contribution in corpus was acceptable, therefore CIT could not deny sec. 10(23AAA) approval to 'employees welfare trust' due to payment of corpus by employer
KPT Employees Welfare Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5905 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=59258&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - When there was no occasion for the asset to enter the block of assets of the purposes of computing depreciation under section 32 then gain arising on sale could not be taxed under section 50 as short-term capital gain but as long-term capital gains.
Income-tax Officer v. Parikh Transport Co.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5904 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=58859&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - An incomparable company cannot per se be included in final set of comparables simply for reason that assessee inadvertently so included it initially. A KPO company cannot be compared to an ITES service providers mainly rendering services to its AE
Macquarie Global Services (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 6(1), New Delhi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5903 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40119&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The two sections, i.e., section 271(1)(c) and section 271AAA are not only worded differently, with thus different concomitant scopes, are rather mandated to operate exclusively.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, Mumbai v. Prakash Steelage Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5902 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40118&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In absence of specific query raised by the authorised officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132(4) about the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived, AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA.
ACIT Versus Brij Bhushan Singal
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5898 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39935&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Factors to hold listed shares as `Investment’ or `Stock-in-trade’ explained. Factors in favour of holding the purchase of shares as investment.
DCIT vs. Rajasthan Global Securities Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5896 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - (i) Growth mutual funds do not yield dividend and so s. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply, (ii) S. 14A/Rule 8D disallowance for admin exp cannot exceed allocable exp debited to P&L A/c, (iii) ALP of funds lent to AE should be as per LIBOR, (iv) ALP of corporate guarantee to be at 0.5%
Manugraph India Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5895 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
ITAT - Law does not provide or mandate that the Assessing Officer shall suo motu supply the copy of ‘reasons to believe’ to the assessee. It is for assessee to ask for reasons then he/she can file objection thereto. If the assessee does not ask for reasons and file objections before the AO, he is not entitled to challenge the reopening proceedings
Anil Kumar Chaudhary vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5894 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.