-
Penalty imposed on legal heir without impleading as legal heir of the deceased not sustainable
Late Shri Chandrakant A. Gandhi By L/H. Shri Vinod C. Gandhi Vs. The ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2546 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Versus Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2545 (SC)
-
S. 153A/ 153C: Important principles of law relating to search assessments explained
V. K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2544 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Sectgion 153A, 153C
-
Merely because partners of Kaypee Developers are also directors of the assessee-company provisions of section 40A(2)(b) is not attracted.
ACIT vs Kamdhenu Home
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2543 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 40A(2)(b)
-
An assessment would be pending before Assessing Officer when such Assessing Officer has power to take action in respect of those assessment years. However, the power to take action in respect of the assessment for a particular assessment year, comes to an end, on the expiry of the period under Section 153 of the Act to make an assessment.
Shriniwas Machine Craft Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anothers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2542 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 153 & 245HA
-
Foreign Exchange – Penalty set aside - In the impugned orders of the Original Authority, as well as the Tribunal and the Division Bench, the sale effected by the Appellants on a rate higher than the rate prevailing in the market was not the basis for the alleged violation of paragraph 3 of the FLM read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA. We are convinced that the impugned orders by which the Appellants were found guilty of the violation of paragraph 3 of FLM read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA and the consequential imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- was wholly unjustified….. If the Appellants have parted with the penalty amount imposed under the impugned orders, the Respondent is directed to refund the same to the Appellants along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Tulip Star Hotels Ltd vs Special Director of Enforcement
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2541 (SC)
-
Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. the Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent assessee was higher then the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Puja Prints
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2540 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 55A(a)
-
Intention to earn dividend income on appreciation of price of shares - Despite large volume of shares transactions, the Assessing Officer cannot ignore the rule of consistency to treat the gains on sale of shares as STCG.
Dy. CIT vs E-Cap Partners
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2539 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 40A(3), Rule 6DD - Where cash payment is made for purchase of agricultural or forest produce or the produce of animal husbandry or dairy or poultry farming etc. as per sub-clause (e) of rule 6DD or payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such persons under clause (k) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, no disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made. In other words, exemptions are carved out under rule 6DD when purchase is of agricultural or forest produce etc. or when such purchase is made through agent who was required to pay in cash.
CIT vs A C INDUSTRIES
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2538 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax S. 40A(3), Rule 6DD
-
S. 68 cash credits: A bank, NBFC etc is not required to give conclusive proof of the identity, credit worthiness etc of the depositor. Practical view has to be taken of deficiencies in KYC norms, absence of PAN card etc
Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2537 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Banking & Finance - Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Practice & Procedure - Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 29 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, rr. 11, 11(2) - Loan - Recovery - Right of purchaser - Auction of property - Legality - Held, HC ought not to have interfered with in matter agitated by respondent in exercise of its writ jurisdiction - Single Judge rightfully dismissed petition filed by respondent - Respondent lost interest in property and remained silent spectator to various orders which came to be passed from time to time - Respondent had, no equitable right in his favor to assail auction-purchase made by appellant.
Sadashiv Prasad Singh vs Harendar Singh & Ors
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2536 (SC)
-
ITAT confirms levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Gross negligence and dereliction of duty – and by more than one person, and would thus qualify to be a conscious disregard of its obligations.
Hamirpur District Co-operative Bank Limited vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2535 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Income Tax Secion 271(1)(c), 80P
-
The employees’ contribution to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF)/ Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the IT ACT, would not be eligible for deduction under section 43B of the Act, even if deposited before the due date of filing the tax return.
CIT vs GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2534 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 43B, 36(1)(va)
-
S. 10A/ 10B - Merely because the claim was made under wrong section, the claim of the assessee should not be rejected if it is found that otherwise, the assessee is eligible for deduction.
ANSR Sources India Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2533 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 10A, 10B
-
S. 272B penalty on deductor for wrong/ non-stating of PAN in TDS return is not applicable if information is not furnished by deductee. Penalty is Rs. 10000 per deductor and not per wrong PAN.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS vs DHTC LOGISTICS LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2532 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 272B
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution is also covered by s. 43B & allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) if paid by the “due date” for filing ROI
CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2531 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · Income tax Section 43B, 36(1)(va)
-
Interest on Income Tax refund should be spread over the years for which interest is granted.
SHRI M. JAFFER SAHEB (DECD.), L/R M.NURUL HUDA vs CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2530 (HC-AP)
-
AO empowered to launch fishing and roving enquiry with a view to detect tax evasion
Kathiroor Service Cooperative Bank vs CIT(CIB) & Ors
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2529 (SC) · Income Tax Section 133(6)
-
Recovering outstanding taxes without affording reasonable time to take remedial steps is a misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts .
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority vs Addl. DIT(E)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2528 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Reopening on the basis of vague / uncertain information on Accommodation Entry not valid
Income Tax Officer vs Maya Gupta
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2527 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 147
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.