-
40(a)(ia) - Retrospectively or Prospectively –TDS paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1), shall be allowed as a deduction.
Rock Tech Engineers vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3224 (ITAT-PUNE) · 40(a)(ia)
-
When the assessee did not debit service tax amount to the P&L Account as an expenditure there was no question of disallowing deduction u/s 43B
Ritco Logistic Pvt. Ltd vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3223 (ITAT-DELHI) · 43B
-
Hon`ble HC upheld the order passed by ITAT deleting the addition u/s 158BC
COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs ORISSA STEVEDORES
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3222 (HC-ORISSA) · 158BC
-
Relationship between the assessee and the distributor / stockists was that of principal to principal and hence, it could not be said to be a commission payment within the meaning of explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Intervet India Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3221 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Sections 10(37), 45(5) - Capital gain exemption on compensation received when certain agricultural lands of assessee were acquired - Cultivation of a land through hired labourer or through member of ones family - Merely because the assessee was not residing close to the land or was also pursuing some other business would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the land was not used for agricultural purposes by the assessee. Assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.10(37) of the Act.
CIT vs VIKRAMBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3220 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 10(37), 45(5)
-
HC denied exemption u/s 12A, creation of committee does not permits Committee to enter into the agreement which enabled it to set up a joint venture for a hospital, on revenue sharing basis.
DIT vs THE GURU HARKISHAN MEDICAL TRUST
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3219 (HC-DELHI)
-
Deduction under section 80IB(10) - Mere sale of open land or unused FSI as part of the housing project where utilization of the FSI is way short of permissible limits cannot be said to have been derived from such housing project. Terms “derived from”, “arising out of” and “attributable to” are often times used in the context of income tax in different connotation. In the present case, the facts are somewhat different. The assessee, in the process of developing two housing projects, had utilized 9595.64 sq.m of buildable area against the maximum permissible area of 13004 sq.m and in other cases, put up construction of 5997.28 sq.m against maximum permissible construction on 8127.75 sq.m. Under utilization, if at all was in the marginal range of 25% to 30%. As held by HC in case of Moon Star Developers, every case of even marginal under utilization of FSI would not be hit by disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB.
CIT vs SHREENATH INFRASTRUCTURE
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3218 (HC-GUJARAT) · 80IB (10) read with Section 80IB(1)
-
Capital Gain - LTGC or STCG - Date of allotment which is relevant for the purpose of computing a holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. The assessee acquired possession of the plot on 12.12.2005 and sold through a registered sale deed dated 9.1.2008. The assessee had acquired beneficial interest to the property at least 96% of the amount was paid i.e. by 3.10.1999. Hence, Assessee had acquired interest of the kind that can enable him to say that he “held” the asset for more than 36 months to entitle him to the benefit of long term capital gain.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs K RAMAKRISHNAN
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3217 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 132, Addition based on oath of unrelated party - ITAT deleted the addition by AO relying on ADIT (Inv) report, where ADIT (Inv) came to a conclusion by relying on the statement of Sri Aga, Director of APIPL, on oath. As matter of fact APIPL had nothing to do with the transaction between the assessee and the sellers.
ACIT vs Ashad Valmark
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3216 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 132
-
Date of allotment letter is to be considered as date of acquisition of right in the property.
Anindya Dutta vs Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3215 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on tax not deducted of amount being outstanding payment which represents the work-in-progress and not claimed as expenditure in the P&L Account.
ACIT vs Dreams Constructions
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3214 (ITAT-PUNE) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Penalty cannot be imposed for the first time in Revision proceedings – Gujarat VAT Tribunal
Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/S The State Of Gujarat
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3213 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Costs of Rs. 1 lakh levied on dept for “gross abuse of process of Court“. Later revoked on assurance that judicial orders would be abided
CIT vs. Kisan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3212 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Dept given “last opportunity” and warned of “heavy costs” for wasting judicial time by filing appeal on covered matters
CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd (Bombay High Court)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3211 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Addition for Subscription to share Capital by Kolkata based companies
M/s Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3210 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 131
-
Addition for loan received after deposit of Cash in Bank Account of loaner
Ghisulal S. Jain(HUF) Vs. CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3209 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Deal with the misuse of Public Interest Litigation with iron hand – SC
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI TR.PRES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN TR.CHIEF SEC.& ORS.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3208 (SC)
-
Pvt firms including telecom Companies come in CAG ambit – SC
ASSO.OF UNIFIED TELE.SERV.PROV.& ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3207 (SC)
-
Parliament can impose Service Tax on Restaurants & Hotels – Bombay HC
Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association Versus Union of India
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3206 (HC-BOMBAY) · S.65(105)(zzzzv)
-
SC grants recognition to transgenders / Eunuchs as third gender
National Legal Services Authority Versus Union of India
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3205 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.