-
SC sets aside Delhi HC judgment in SIN Oceanic and NetApp BV, wherein HC held that AAR applications inadmissible once tax return filed; SC calls for fresh ruling in accordance with law.
SIN OCEANIC SHIPPING ASA NORWAY vs AAR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2586 (SC)
-
Method of accounting - AO simply by rejecting the method of accounting followed by the assessee is not proper since assessments have been completed in other assessment years cases based on the same accounting method. The assessment was not based on the seized material but, it is based only on wrong accounting standards followed by the assessee-company in recognising the revenue and hence, the only issue is to be adjudicated upon in this appeal is whether the AO is right in rejecting the accounting method regularly employed by the assessee and substituting the same with accounting method as per AS-7 and computation of profit based on the same. The assessing officer has taken estimated revenue from the projects without considering the fact that whether the units are sold or not. In other words, profit is being estimated on unsold stock also. As per revised AS-7 2002, does not apply to the builders and real estate developers. The method followed by the assessee company cannot be called as an unreasonable method and any change in the method would only be tax neutral.
Asst. CIT Vs. Universal Realtors Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2585 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Sections 147/ 148 of Income Tax Act not applicable to Block assessment under Chapter XIVB of the Act.
ACIT vs Sunil Kumar Jain
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2584 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · Income Tax Section Sections 147, 148, 158BC
-
It is not enough for the AO to merely state his “satisfaction” i.e. conclusion that conditions attracting penalty u/s 271AAA are satisfied. The AO should also state his “reasons” for the ‘conclusion’/'satisfaction’. CIT is also not justified in dismissing assessee’s revision application against the penalty by simply affirming AO’s order without examining whether conditions stated in section 271AAA for imposing penalty were satisfied and without recording any reasons.
Crossings Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissionerof Income Tax (Central) And Another
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2583 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 271AAA
-
S. 14A / Rule 8D disallowance cannot be made without showing how assessee’s claim/ computation is wrong
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs REI AGRO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2582 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Income Tax Section 14A, Rule 8D
-
Interest on interest paid due to default in payment of home loan instalments is not deductible u/s 24.
Master Naman Kumar vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2581 (HC-P&H) · Income Tax Section 24
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution is also covered by s. 43B & allowable as a deduction if paid by “due date” of filing ROI.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs VIJAY SHREE LIMITED
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2580 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Income Tax Section 43(B), 36(1)(va) read with s. 2(24)(x)
-
Realisation of Trade Tax Arrears will not take precedence over the right of the Bank to recover the dues as a secured creditor
Urmila Devi & Ors vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2579 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Recovery before expiry of statutory period for filing appeal is breach of statutory provisions – HC
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra Limited Petitioner versus The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and others Respondents
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2578 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 14A Recording of satisfaction is pre-requisite for invoking rule 8D
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2577 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
No Penalty U/s. 271B for by mistake filing of unsigned report of auditor
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut & Another V/s. M/S Shivalik Medicare (P) Ltd. Ghaziabad
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2576 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Additions for undisclosed investment could without doubting the genuineness of documents produced not justified
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M B PATEL
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2575 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
No S. 14A Disallowance without recording dissatisfaction over expense claimed by the Assessee
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II Versus M/S. R.E.I. AGRO LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2574 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
Discounting charges of Bill of Exchange or factoring charges of sale cannot be termed as interest for TDS U/s. 194A
Income-tax Officer Vs. M/s. M K J Enterprises Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2573 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
SC dismisses Revenue's appeal against Chattisgarh HC judgment reported in (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2597 (HC-CHHATTISGARH).Honable high court held that there was no “concealment” for imposition of Sec 271(1)(c) penalty, as there was neither detection nor possession of information by Revenue, besides assessee's surrender. Amount relating to share application money was added to income u/s 68 during assessment only based on assessee's surrender.
CIT vs AGRAWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2572 (SC) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 68
-
S. 271(1)(c) - There was no “concealment” for imposition of Sec 271(1)(c) penalty, as there was neither detection nor possession of information by Revenue, besides assessee's surrender. Amount relating to share application money was added to income u/s 68 during assessment only based on assessee's surrender.
CIT vs Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2571 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 68
-
ITAT bench following (2013) 7 TaxCorp (A.T.) 31149 (BANGALORE) directed AO to re-frame the assessment order in accordance with law ignoring the observation of the learned CIT on allowability of deduction u/s 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Jafari Momin Vikash Co-op. Credit Society Ltd vs CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2570 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income Tax Section 263, 80P(2)(a)(i)
-
Section 80P(4) applies only to credit co-operative banks but not to credit co-operative societies
CIT vs JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2569 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 80P(4)
-
The assessee company is a co-operative society not in banking business. The provisions of Section 80P(4) will not have any application in the assessee’s case. Therefore, it is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2568 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income Tax Section 80P(4)
-
Jobbing is not speculative in view of proviso(c) to section 43(5)
Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Sri Ram Kishan Gupta
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2567 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.