-
HC - Clauses (a) to (c) to Sec 253(6) speaks of assessment of total income and the amounts demanded now, is not on assessment, but of penalty imposed, therefore ITAT is directed to admit appeal on payment of Rs. 500 as valid court-fees against penalty order.
Dr. R.P.Patel vs. ACIT & Ors
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5852 (HC-KERALA)
-
HC - It is yet to be ascertained whether the assessee is the actual owner of the stolen cash recovered, therefore its release for penalty recovery is declined.
ADIT vs. Government of NCT of Delhi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5851 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Assessee may not be successful in substantiating their claim, but that by itself does not mean penalty follows. For withholding imposition of penalty whether the particulars of income or furnishing of inappropriate particulars of income is an element present and with regard thereto any explanation is offered or not or if offered whether the same is false or an offer of such explanation which the assessee is unable to substantiate and it is lacking in bona fides that the penalty can be imposed.
CIT vs. Ram & Co
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5850 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - As assessee did not file any explanation for claiming depreciation at variance with the depreciation claimed by the previous owner of the asset, it was a fit case for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c). There is fundamental difference in a debatable claim and a patently wrong or false claim. Whenever any material fact, for correct computation of income, is not filed or if filed is inaccurate, then penalty has to be imposed.
DCIT vs. SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5849 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Payment to Railways was covered by the exception laid down in Rule 6DD(b), therefore payment in cash to Railways for purchasing scrap iron not covered by Sec 40A(3).
ITO vs Mohammed Rafiq
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5848 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 40A(3)
-
ITAT - For computation of interest payable under S.201(1A) ‘month’ shall be understood as a period of 30 days and not ‘month’ as British calendar month as defined in S.3(35) of the General Clauses Act.
Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P) Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5847 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 201
-
ITAT - Assessee is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 10B on the Profits on sale of incentives received from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India (Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna)
M/s Little Bee Impex Versus The DCIT., Circle Khanna and The Assessing Officer, Ludhiana
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5837 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=38056&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on the issue of set off of profit on sale of depreciable assets of 1.13 crores against long term capital gain which arose to the assessee on indexation method and also allowing brought forward long term capital gain against the said profit on sale of depreciable assets.
Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Versus M/s. India Securities Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5836 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60672&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - It is only the income from such investment or deposit which has been made in violation of section 11(5) of the Act that is liable to be taxed and violation under section 13(1)(d) does not result in denial of exemption under section 11 to the total income of the assessee and that where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under section 11 by virtue of violation of section 13(1) (d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus ORPAT CHARITABLE TRUST
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5835 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60663&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The endeavor of the AAR should be to decide the case on merits and settle the issue between the parties in advance and not throw out the application on mere technicalities. Non-appearance on one particular date, AAR cannot decide ex-parte.
Onmobile Global Limited vs. DIT & ors.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5834 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
HC - Exemption u/s 54F - Once a habitable asset is acquired, any additions or improvements made on that habitable asset is not eligible for deduction, is contrary to the statutory provisions.
Mrs. Rehana siraj, Syed Siraj Ahmed, Syed Salman, Syed Jibran Ahmed Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I and Others
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5833 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60674&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amounts received by the assessee on account of letting out of its property is income taxable under the head "income from house property". Thus, no occasion to apply Section 11A (4) would not arise.
Director of Income Tax, (Exemption) Versus Fellowship of Physically Handicapped
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5832 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60673&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amounts transferred by the assessee company to the General Reserve on amalgamation is not in the nature of any benefit or perquisite and thus not taxable under Section 28(iv).
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. STADS Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5831 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60688&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Supply of fodder to cattle and animals is not only a good religious trust but it is also a good charitable trust. Entitlement to exemption under Section 11.
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Versus Bombay Panjrapole Trust
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5830 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60675&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee engaged the services of non-resident agent to procure export orders and paid commission. Services rendered can at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services. Section 9 is not applicable. No TDS u/s 195.
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Orient Express
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5829 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7967&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Disclosing income but classifying it under a wrong head amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars and attracts penalty
Shubhmangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5828 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Sanction (for issuance of notice under section 148) of CIT instead of JCIT renders reopening void. The error cannot be saved u/s 292BB
Sardar Balbir Singh vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5827 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Sections. 147, 151, 292BB
-
ITAT - Modification to client code of client is not necessarily a mala fide act. Disclosure made in a statement recorded at unearthly hours cannot be given credence. If a voluntary disclosure is retracted, the AO has to make addition on the basis of documentary evidence
ACIT. vs. Kunvarji Finance Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5826 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT - Companies, if authorized by the MoA & AoA, are competent to make and receive gifts. Natural love and affection is a not necessary requirement for a gift. The gift is neither taxable as income u/s 56 (pre-amendment) nor as capital gain nor as income u/s.2(22)(e) nor u/s.115JB
DCIT. vs. KDA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5825 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 56, 2(22)(e), 115JB
-
ITAT - Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) cannot be followed but Q whether the second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective or not requires to be considered by the AO
ACIT. vs. Bhavook Chandraprakash Tripathi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5824 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 40(a)(ia)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.