-
Amount received by liaison office over and above the expenses actually incurred is taxable
M/s Brown & Sharpe INC Vs. Assistant /Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2566 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Deemed dividend provisions not applicable to loan made in ordinary course of business
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Pravin C. Pandya
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2565 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
S. 276CC SC allows initiation of prosecution against Jayalalithaa for non filing of I.T. Return
Sasi Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2564 (SC)
-
AP High Court grants Stays on Audit by CAG of private Company
M/s. Aditya Housing & Infrastructure Development Company Pvt Ltd V/s. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2563 (HC-AP)
-
Prosecution for offence u/s 276CC for failure to file ROI can be initiated during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The statement in the individual returns of the partners that the firm has not filed a ROI as its’ accounts are not finalized does not absolve the firm of prosecution for non-filing of ROI
Sasi Enterprises vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2562 (SC)
-
No ‘transfer’ when a partner received his share in the partnership business. Payment received was towards transfer of goodwill.
ACIT vs Sri N Prasad
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2561 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
Unsubstantiated material found in the pendrive cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee as a conclusive evidence so as to make additions towards unexplained credit.
Sahitya Housing Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2560 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. Guess work is not possible in case of search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 153A of the Act.
DCIT vs Sri K Babu Rao
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2559 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 143(3), 153A
-
Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 142(2A), 44 AB - A/y 2009-2010 - Maintenance of accounts - Special audit for collateral purpose u/s 142(2A) - Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the assessee. But opinion required to be formed by the Assessing Officer for exercise of power under the said provision must be based on objective criteria and not on the basis of subjective satisfaction. There is no gainsaying that recourse to the said provision cannot be had by the Assessing Officer merely to shift his responsibility of scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor.
Kaka Carpets vs CIT And Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2558 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 142(2A), 44 AB
-
Income Tax - Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, ss. 3(1), 9(2) and 9(4) - Building used for providing free medical aid must be exempted from paying building tax.
SH MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL vs STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2557 (SC)
-
Disallowance u/s 14A - Interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A as the taxpayer had sufficient own funds available for investment.
CIT vs GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2556 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 14A
-
S. 220: AO cannot exercise coercive measures to recove tax during the period available for filing an appeal
Dishnet Wireless Limited vs ACIT and Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2555 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 220
-
S. 147: Failure to compute capital gains u/s 50C does not lead to escapement of income
ITO vs Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2554 (ITAT-AGRA) · Income Tax Section 147, 50C
-
Where legal question was raised even first time before Tribunal, Tribunal was required to consider same in accordance with law
Sankeshwar Printers (P.) Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2553 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Where original order passed by Tribunal did not show that any ground relating to jurisdiction of ITO was raised by assessee, whether Tribunal committed error in recalling its order for not considering such ground.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAZA HUSSAIN CONTRACTOR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2552 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
JDA - Without possession of the property, no construction can be taken. In 1996, Power of Attorney was executed to sell the flats, an irresistible inference that can be drawn from the material on record is that possession has been delivered under the agreement; payment of Rs.10 lakhs was paid, that is the reason why roughly about Rs.35 lakhs has been paid between 30.6.1994 and 31.5.1996. It is a joint development agreement.
SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2551 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
CAs only can conduct Audit under Service Tax not the Dept. Officers : HC
M/S A.C.L. Education Centre (P) Ltd. & Others V/s. Union Of India Thr.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue, New Delhi & Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2550 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Mere execution of development agreement not amounts to transfer
The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Shri Sadia Shaikh
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2549 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Coercive steps for recovery cannot be initiated till time to prefer an appeal exhausts
Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2548 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 54F Deduction not allowable if assessee owns more than ne residential house on the date of transfer
The ITO Vs. Ms. Apsara Bhavana Sai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2547 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.