-
No addition can be made pursuant to section 153A/ 153C proceedings in the absence of any incriminating material or inquiries based on such material.
ACIT vs Shri Manoj Narain Aggarwal
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2606 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 153A, 153C
-
Prior to 1st April 2007, the explanation to Section 115JB referring to the term "Book Profit" included the expenditure and income relatable to any income to which section 10A or section 10B applied for the purpose of increase in the book profit and the income itself for the purpose of decreasing the book profit. It is precisely therefore that the CIT [A] has given a direction for working out the book profit of the assessee by applying the said formula. This is in consonance with the provisions of Section 115JB and in particular explanation thereof, as it stood at the relevant time. The said provision was materially changed, however, later on. Since CIT [A] has given direction, as were confirmed by the Tribunal which were in consonance with the statutory provisions prevalent at the relevant time, no reason to consider this question also.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ace Software Exports Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2605 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 115JB
-
Imposition of penalty under Section 271(a) stands on a different footing from penalty under Section 271(c).
Medical Land vs CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2604 (HC-KERALA) · Income Tax Section 132, 158B, 271(1)(c)
-
Share trading business on own behalf is "jobbing"; Jobbing is not speculative in view of proviso(c) to section 43(5).
Commissioner Income Tax vs Sri Ram Kishan Gupta
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2603 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 43(5)
-
.
Devdas Rama Mangalore vs CIT and ors
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2602 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 119(2)(b)
-
.
ITO vs Anson Financial Holidays
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2601 (ITAT-COCHIN) · income Tax Section 40(a)(ia), 40A(2)(b)
-
.
All India Children Care & Educational Development Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2600 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 143(2), 143(1)
-
S. 271(1)(c) - The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings were separate and distinct. Though the addition was confirmed in the Appellate proceedings, the Assessing Authority was bound to re-appreciate the material available on record in the penalty proceedings. The Assessee had filed certificates issued by the Competent Authority under the VDIS, 1997 to show that the creditors had sufficient balances to advance funds to the Assessee. Unfortunately these certificates were not produced before the lower Authority. The present Tribunal was the final fact finding Authority. Therefore, the factual aspects had to be settled at this level. The amounts disclosed by the creditors under the VDIS had to be taken into account on the basis of the certificates issued by the Competent Authority. The Assessing Authority had to examine the certificate and find out whether the amounts disclosed under the VDIS, 1997 were available with the creditors to advance the money to the taxpayer. In the absence of the certificates issued by the Competent Authority under VDIS, 1997, the Lower Authorities had no occasion to consider them. Therefore, the present Tribunal was of the opinion that the certificates issued by the Competent Authority had to be considered by the Assessing Authority. Accordingly the orders of the Lower Authorities were set aside and the entire issue was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Authority. Appeal by taxpayer allowed for statistical purposes.
Parisons Exports Inc vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2599 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
TDS not deductible on Payments to banks for utilization of credit card facilities are in
JDS Apparels Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2598 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
10(23C)(iiiad) - An exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiib) cannot be either claimed or granted unless all the ingredients as reflected therein are satisfied/fulfilled. Merely because the Government gave lands and development funds and created assets of the University whereby it acquired income generation capacity would not mean the "income" that the University is generating from other sources will have to be treated as financial aid by the Government. If we say so, perhaps every such institution, which admittedly, make profit, also will have to be exempted under sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C).
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2597 (HC-KARNATAKA) · sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C)
-
Assessee cannot claim exemption U/s. 54 on two disparately placed properties
Shri A. Kodanda Rami Reddy v. The Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2596 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Interest on Income Tax refund should be spread over the years for which interest is granted
Shri M. Jaffer Saheb (Decd.) Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2595 (HC-AP)
-
Unclaimed Liabilities Not Taxable As Income Even If Creditors Not Traceable or Non-Genuine
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2594 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
SC dismisses SLP – Disallowance of reimbursement of expenses to agents U/s. 40(a)(ia)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2593 (SC)
-
Development agreements are NOT joint ventures - The words `joint venture' or `collaboration' in the title of an agreement or even in the body of the agreement will not make the transaction a joint venture, if there are no provisions for shared control of interest or enterprise and shared liability for losses.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2592 (SC)
-
DVO report cannot be basis of any addition of undisclosed income during search proceding
CIT vs Vasudev Construction
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2591 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 158BD, 143(2), 142(1)
-
S. 220: AO’s action of coercive recovery is illegal and shocks the conscience. The Tribunal cannot remain a silent spectator to such illegal action
DIT(E) vs ITAT and The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2590 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 220
-
Explained delay should be understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay Bona fide reasons and negligence if any should be considered for condoning the delay.
Chandra vs Hari Singh and others Plaintiffs
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2589 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
Expenditure on discounting/factoring charges is not in the nature of interest for purposes of TDS u/s 194A or disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)
Income-tax Officer vs MKJ Enterprises Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2588 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax 194A, 40(a)(ia)
-
For s. 14A/ Rule 8D(2)(ii), interest expenditure on loans taken for taxable business purposes has to be excluded.
Income-tax Officer vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2587 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 14A, rule 8D
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.