-
Satisfaction note issuance u/s 158BD - scope and possible interpretation of Section 158BD - “Satisfaction” has to be recorded by AO to attain jurisdiction over non-searched person - (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158BC of the Act; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158BC of the Act of the searched person.
CIT vs Calcutta Knitwears
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2726 (SC) · Income Tax Section 158BD, 158BD and Chapter XIV-B
-
Hon`ble High court upheld ITAT direction to deposit of 50 per cent of tax liability on the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking grant of interim stay.
Vodafone South Ltd vs DDIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2725 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Interest earned by the assessee on the margin money deposited by it for borrowing amounts to finance its expansion, whether capital in nature - The interest received in this case is ‘inextricably linked’ with the construction of the power project, in as much as the loan was utilised to make advances linked to the expansion. The margin money from which the interest was earned was placed for the purpose of taking the loan. The loan was given for the purpose of expansion and thus fell within the ruling in CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd., (1999) 236 ITR 315 SC. In these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal`s approach and finding cannot be faulted and no question of law arises.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs BOKARO POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2724 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 250(4), and provisions of rule 46A - Mere fact that the results of the enquiries thus conducted supported the case of the assessee and not that of Revenue has no bearing on the jurisdiction and powers of the learned CIT(A).
DCIT vs NE Technologies India Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2723 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 250(4), Rule 46A
-
STCG or LTCG - Handing over possession after receiving full consideration is the definitive declaration of transfer of property as per the definition u/s 2(47), registration is only a process. The assessee is rightfully claiming exemption u/s 54F.
Vrajendra Karan Varma Rathod vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2722 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47), 54F
-
Mistake in 26AS issued by the contractor, assessee cannot be default . S. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature since it has been introduced to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the tax payer.
The Asst. CIT vs PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2721 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Benefit u/s 54F – Due date of investment would be under Section 139(1) only not under Section 139(4) of the Act.
DR. XAVIER J. PULIKKAL vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2720 (HC-KERALA) · Income Tax Section 54F
-
The assessee is entitled to its claim of exemption on the income derived from warehousing charges, supervision charges, fumigation charges, weigh bridge receipts and sale of tender forms and interest collected on belated refund of advance alone; however, on the income from house property, income on bank deposits, loans and advances made to the members of the staff, interest on fixed deposits and dividend income, the assessee is not entitled to any relief of exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act.
Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2719 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 10(29)
-
Any income disclosed in the form of assets u /s 132(4) r.w. sub-section (2) of section 271AAA cannot be a ground for imposition of penalty as the assessee has paid taxes alongwith interest as per statement itself which was modified on the basis of accrual working of income.
Shri Vinod Singhvi vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2718 (ITAT-JODHPUR) · Income Tax Section 132(4) r.w.s Expl. (5) to Section 271(1)(c)/sub-section (2) of section 271AAA
-
Amount which was earned by the assessee on these deposits made with it, minus any legitimate expenses incurred in the business, would amount to income of the assessee the deposits themselves could not amount to income.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs Sahara India (Firm)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2717 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The term ‘relative’ has been defined in Explanation to Section 56(2), which includes Hindu Undivided Family. However, HUF has been included in the list of ‘relative’ by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01-10-2009. The case in hand relates to the AY.2008-09, the assessee cannot take the benefit of the amendment from retrospective effect. The assessee is liable to pay tax on the cash gift received during the AY.2008-09.
M Veluswamy vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2716 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section Section 56(2)
-
Demerger, set-off of brought forward losses of a demerged undertaking is permitted if the undertaking is hived off ‘as a going concern’.
KBD Sugars & Distilleries Ltd vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2715 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 72(A)
-
Merely pays booking amount more than one year prior to date of transfer, assessee can’t be denied Sec. 54F relief.
Gopilal Laddha vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2714 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 54F
-
Allotment letter or payment of first installment has entitled the assessee to claim a long term capital gain.
Madhu Kaul vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2713 (HC-P&H) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
S. 54EC - 'Six months' shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar.
ALKABEN B. PATEL VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2712 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income Tax Section 54EC, General Clauses Act, 1897
-
Courtyard cannot be included to calculate the built-up area in terms of Section 80IB(10)
Commonwealth Developers vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2711 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 80IB(10)
-
Four row houses being Bungalows having built up area exceeding 1500 sq.ft, were not part and parcel of the housing project, for which the deduction was claimed. The claim of the assessees for the buildings other than the four row houses was in consonance with the condition stipulated in Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowable.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Cajetano Mario Pereira
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2710 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 80IB(10)
-
Foreign travel expenses incurred by the director of the assessee company for exploring the prospects of export of the assessee’s products abroad is allowable business expenditure even if the director incurred such expenditure in the capacity of President of Indian Chemical Council
ACIT vs East India Pharmaceuticals Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2709 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 37(1), 32
-
Exemption u/s 54F - Approval of building plan is not necessary. Construction of new in place of old residential building, assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F.
B Sivasubramanian vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2708 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 54F
-
HC issue direction to CIT(A), to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal.
BIMAL PAUL vs THE CHAIRMAN, CBDT & 3 ORS
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2707 (HC-GAUHATI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.