-
Assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) in case it collected any money by whatever name it is called i.e., donation, building fund, auditorium fund etc. etc., over and above the prescribed fee for admission of students.
ADIT vs St Augustin Educational Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2486 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 11 or u/s 10(23C)
-
S. 234A/B/C - Interest is mandatory, but it cannot be charged retrospectively when there was no receipt in the hands of assessee. No law is applicable retrospectively unless specified in the statute.
Ashwani Dhingra vs Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2485 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 234A/B/C
-
Applicability of Explanation to section 28 and section 73 of the Act cannot be brushed aside even when speculative transactions come within the meaning of section 43(5) of the Act and speculative business is deemed to be distinct and separate from other business. Section 73 has been specifically enacted for controlling the claims of loss carried forward from such business. Assessee might not be having a loss in the impugned assessment year, but if the net result was a loss, the treatment of that loss, once it arose out of speculative transactions would be entirely different from that of a normal business loss Assessment done for the impugned assessment year if confirmed, by accepting the contentions of the assessee would have an overflowing effect on the succeeding assessment years, where the trading results from the same business and different classes of activities could be different.
C D Equi Search Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2484 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Act Sections 28 & 73
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution covered by S. 43B
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2483 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Method of accounting can be changed if such change is bona fide and permissible under law
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus MAPIN PUBLISHING PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2482 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Even in a composite contract, off-shore profits cannot be assessed by dept. without showing its attribution to PE
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Versus The Director of Income-tax - 1
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2481 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution not covered by Section 43B
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2480 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
High Court advices restraint In-friction between ITAT Bar And Bench, Expunge reference made by ITAT to ICAI
Pradeep Kumar Kapoor Vs. Income Tax Appeellate Tribunal,Lucknow Bench ‘Smc’ Lko.& Anr
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2479 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Recognition U/s. 80G(5) cannot be rejected for Mere non Commencement of one of the activities mentioned in object clause
Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Vihangam Yoga Prachar And Social Welfare Trust Lucknow
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2478 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
S. 272B Penalty is Rs. 10000 per deductor and not per wrong PAN
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS versus DHTC LOGISTICS LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2477 (HC-DELHI)
-
Exemption u/s 54EC can be availed by a Trust even if investments are made in the name of trustees or beneficiaries
Popatlal N. Vora Inheritance Trust Vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2476 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Penalty u/s 271AAA on members of AOP for income initially disclosed and declared in the hands of AOP
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus VIRENDARA KUMAR GUPTA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2475 (HC-DELHI)
-
TDS on Service Tax on Professional Fees if same is paid separately as per contract terms
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Versus M/s. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2474 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature
Commissioner of Income Tax XIII Versus Naresh Kumar
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2473 (HC-DELHI)
-
Joint Development Agreement –cum -GPA - Provisions of section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act - Handing over of the possession of the property is only one of the condition u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, but it is not the sole and isolated condition. 'Willingness to perform' has been specifically recognized as one of the essential ingredients to cover a transaction by the scope of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Fibars Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2472 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax S. 2(47)(v) and S. 53A of TPA
-
Sections 49(1), 55(1)(b) - Cost of Acquisition - Succession or Inheritance - Cost of Improvement - Even if the assessee had discharged the liability by making payment, this cannot constitute a part of the cost of acquisition of the property transferred. Further on applicability of section 50C, ITAT bench rejected assessee submission that the transactions were entered into well before 01/04/2003 and, therefore, provisions of section 50C are not applicable. as assessee has not been substantiated with enough evidence and documents that the land has been sold by the an agreement of sale in the earlier years i.e. 2000 and 2001
Maniza Jumabhoy vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2471 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Sections 49(1), 55(1)(b)
-
Central Excise – MODVAT – Interest - The issue involved in all these appeals is with regard to the liability to pay interest under the provisions of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000, which pertains to liability of the assessee to pay interest under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There was no issue with regard to any adjudication because the respondents had availed MODVAT credit on the HSD oil used as an input though it was not permissible. Once it is certain that the MODVAT credit had been wrongly availed by the respondents, in our opinion, the Revenue cannot be blamed, if the amount wrongly availed by way of MODVAT credit by the respondents is recovered with interest thereon. It is also pertinent to note that the Revenue had given 30 days’ time to return the said amount to the respondents who had wrongly availed MODVAT credit on the HSD oil used as an input. If anyone who had repaid the amount wrongly availed within 30 days from the date on which Section 112 of the 2000 Act got the President’s assent, that assessee had not to pay any interest on the amount of duty availed by him wrongly.
Union of India & Ors vs Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2470 (SC)
-
Interest u/s 244A cannot be denied for the time taken by the appellant assessee to cure the defects in the TDS certificates as no amount is due from the assessee so far as TDS certificates and the amount was lying with the revenue. The interest is payable on account of the amount in excess of what is payable was remaining with the revenue and not for the delay caused by the revenue in determining the refund of the amount. In that view of the matter as the excess amount was remaining with the revenue, interest is to be paid on the amount to be refunded to the assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2469 (HC-KERALA) · Income Tax Section 244A
-
ESOP recharges cost paid by Indian company to foreign parent tax deductible Shares were allotted at less than market price by the holding company to the employees of its Indian subsidiary.
Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2468 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 37(1), 40A(2)(b)
-
S. 47(xiii) - Revaluation of land upon conversion of partnership firm into private limited company shown as loan to shareholders (erstwhile partners) violates conditions and not considered as transfer.
KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd vs Dy.CIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2467 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 47(xiii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.