-
Presence of commercial motive cannot be a ground to cancel registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. It was not a necessary element for a charitable purpose that it should be providing something for nothing or for less than what it costs or for less than the ordinary price. So long as the income of the trust is applied for charitable purpose, there can be no question of any tax liability on the assessee.
Vivekanand General Hospital vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2646 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 12AA
-
Wind energy generators used in the process of manufacture of wind mills. Generator sets being one such block of asset falling for consideration under Clause 10A of the depreciation table, this alone would qualify for the rate as prescribed under 'renewal energy devices', i.e., 100% depreciation. As far as other machineries are concerned viz., drilling machines, boring machines, boring machine for foundation work and lathe machine, as rightly pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the same would qualify for depreciation at 25% and not at 100% as claimed by the assess.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. TTG Industries Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2645 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 32 & Rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules
-
S. 10A/ 10B: Interest income out of surplus funds in Banks and sister concerns & EEFC account is eligible for exemption
CIT vs Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2644 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 10A, 10B
-
Distinction between “hire purchase transactions” and “loan transactions” explained
CIT vs Commercial Motors Finance Ltd. Kanpur
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2643 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
S. 271(1)(c) - No doubt, in the case of the Assessee, the claim of the Assessee in respect of Depreciation on Goodwill has been disallowed and confirmed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court but since now the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is before us in the case (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 52548 (SC), it cannot be said that the claim of the Assessee was not bona fide. The disallowance of claim of depreciation in case of the Assessee will not make the claim of the Assessee not to be bona fide one. The bona fide of the claim of the Assessee is itself proved by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these facts it cannot be said that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so far it relates to the claim of depreciation on goodwill in each of the A.Ys. The claim u/s 80IA/80IB has been made by the Assessee as per computation and for making the claim, the Assessee has to submit the audited report which is duly certified by the C.A. All the particulars in respect of the claim are to be furnished. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessee has not furnished all the particulars of the claim. If the Assessee has made the claim on the basis of the opinion and certificate of an expert, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We, accordingly, dismiss all the appeals filed by the Revenue.
ACIT vs Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2642 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
Notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 is barred by limitation.
ACIT vs Apex Packing Products(P) Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2641 (ITAT-PANAJI)
-
When assessee has earned the dividend income from the company, some expenditure might have incurred and it is the duty of the AO to make enquiry in respect of expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income. This is the case whether the AO has made the assessment without proper enquiry. The AO unlike the Civil Court which is neutral to give a decision on the basis of evidence produced before him. But AO is not only adjudicator but also an investigator. The AO cannot remain passive on the facts of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. In this case it was the duty of the AO to make enquiry, whether assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the dividend from the company at Rs. 54,620.50 or not. The AO was failed to make such enquiry, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The assessment is restored to the AO to make a further enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Haroon Ebrahim vs CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2640 (ITAT-PANAJI)
-
concept of “fees” referred to in section 43B cannot be equated with levy of audit charges payable for getting the audit of the accounts done.
Gudas Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamit vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2639 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Income Tax Section 43B
-
Words & Phrases : 'Any amount becomes due to assessee' as occurring in section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
ACIT vs Kerala Transport Co
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2638 (HC-KERALA)
-
Tribunal has no power to grant stay beyond a period of 365 days
CIT vs M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited & CIT vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2637 (HC-DELHI)
-
Mere long continuance of litigation by the petitioner and there being no interim order protecting the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was any mitigating factor in the favour of the petitioner.
Giri Lall & Co vs State Of Bihar & Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2636 (HC-PATNA)
-
New unit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 10B - Merely because assessee might have utilized some of the previous structures on the plot, in our view, cannot decline him deduction u/s 10B of the Act - Electrical connection is crucial to start operations - Payments made through banks to various people for carrying out the works of repairs and renovations to the factory building for making it suitable for carrying out the assessee's works - Assessee’s sales have also increased in the assessment year in question. In our view, the aforesaid material clearly proves that the assessee had set up a new unit.
ACIT vs Shri R. Benjamin Cherian
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2635 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 10B
-
Section 45 and 48 of the Act are distinct and clearly stipulates the chargeability and computation of long term capital gains respectively.
Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2634 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 45, 48
-
S. 80-IB(10): Limit on extent of commercial area imposed by clause (d) of s. 80IB (10) inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to projects approved before that date
Income Tax Officer vs Yash Developers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2633 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 80IB(10)
-
Statement recorded during survey u/s 133A and retracted thereafter have no evidentiary value
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III versus SUNRISE TOOLING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2632 (HC-DELHI)
-
Return of income processed u/s 143(1) cannot be reassessed u/s 147 on mere change of opinion of AO
MOHAN GUPTA (HUF) V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2631 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC not happy with reopening of case of IRS officer to settle personal vendetta
SHRI PRADYOT K. MISRA versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2630 (HC-DELHI)
-
Foreign education expenses of employee (son of director) deductible if there is business nexus
M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2629 (HC-DELHI)
-
Assessee cannot be regarded to be a primary co-operative bank, therefore, it cannot be a co-operative bank and therefore the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) are not applicable in the case of the Assessee and Assessee shall be entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)
The Tararani Mahila Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2628 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Income Tax Section 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4)
-
Bogus Payment – Gross Profit – Purchases may be from the bogus parties; nevertheless, the entire purchases themselves were not bogus- Merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the assessing officer or the CIT (A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. - Purchases made by the assessee from parties were bogus when that is so, it cannot be said that the entries for the purchases of the goods made in the books of account were bogus entries.
Anantha Refinery Private Limited vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2627 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.