-
Law of jurisdictional High Court is not binding if there is a later contrary judgement of non-jurisdictional High Court. S. 22: Property used by firm in which assessee-owner is partner is not used for assessee’s business & not entitled for exemption
Shri Prakash Vasantbhai Golwala vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Disallowance of Commission paid - Increase the commission from 1% to 2.5% - AO had permitted commission in the absence of any other evidence to prove the same at 1% of the total turnover taking into account the commission paid by similar agencies. It is not in dispute that none of the vouchers produced by the assessee was signed by any of the persons who had received the commission. Therefore, normally such amounts are to be added to the income of the assessee. For deletion of such income, necessarily evidence has to be adduced. No evidence worth appreciating was available other than a general contention that commission had been paid. Assessing Officer permitted allowance of 1% as commission and there is no any reason for the appellate authority to have increased the said commission to 2.5%. Such an approach has been made purely based on surmises.
CIT vs SRI E S JOSE ,PROP. A2Z TILES & FLOORINGS
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2285 (HC-KERALA)
-
The provisions of S. 139(5) gives a right to an assessee to file a revised return of income if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. The assessee has filed the revised return on finding that the disallowance required to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not made in the original return of income and further the claim of “loss on clearance sale” was not made therein.
R Kasi Vishwanathan & Bros vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2284 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income tax Section 139(5), 40(a)(ia)
-
Loss on forward foreign exchange contracts is incidental to the exports business and not a “speculation loss“. However, if the contract is prematurely cancelled, the assessee has to justify the loss
London Star Diamond Company (I) P. Ltd vs DCIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2283 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 43(5)
-
No interest under section 234B can be levied on account of such retrospective amendment in section 115JB. Further once the interest income is not taxable in the hands of the recipient and was exempted by the Government of India, then there is no question of TDS on the interest paid and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is called for.
Essar Steel India Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2282 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 234B, 115JB, 40(a)(i)
-
Hon`ble high court upheld the order passed by ITAT ruling reported in (2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 1654 (ITAT-PANAJI) held that, Trading advance cannot be regarded as loans and advances for applying the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Payment to a non shareholder cannot be regarded as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Revenue cannot take a different view in the case of the assessee for the same agreement once it has accepted.
ACIT vs M/s. Britto Amusement Pvt Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2281 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Statute does not recognize the defences " to avoid litigation, buy peace" under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
MAK Data P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2280 (SC) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
Provident Fund – Interest on belated remittance - In the present case, it is manifest from the record that the appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- before the Competent Authority and sought for supply of the calculation sheet the basis on which the computation had been made so that it could reconcile the accounts. We think it appropriate to direct that the computation sheets shall be provided to the appellant within three weeks and it shall file its objection within two weeks therefrom and thereafter the Competent Authority shall fix a date for reconciliation of the accounts.
Arcot Textile Mills Ltd vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2279 (SC)
-
Tribunal has no power to dismiss appeal for non-appearance of appellant. It has to deal with the merits. An application for recall of an ex-parte dismissal order is under s. 254(2) & must be filed within 4 years from the date of the order. The Tribunal must permit “mentioning” of matters
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs ITAT & Ors
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 254(2)
-
S. 80P(2)(a)(i), 271(1)(C) - Penalty is leviable even if the assessee has adequately made the disclosure of particulars in the return of income.
APEX URBAN CO-OP BANK OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA LTD Vs ITO
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2277 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income tax Section 80P(2)(a)(i), 271(1)(C)
-
The transaction of transferring the shares of the group companies at low price causing long term capital loss and sale of shares of at high price, making short term capital gains, thereby setting off the short term capital gains against the long term capital loss, is not colourable device to evade tax.
CIT vs Hede Consultancy Company Pvt. Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2276 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC conforms ITAT ruling - Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. Profit incentives and items such as rent, commission, brokerage charges etc., though they form part of the gross total income have to be excluded as they are “independent incomes” which have no element of export turnover.
Damodar Mangalji Mining Co vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2275 (HC-BOMBAY) · Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC
-
VCES - Service Tax - High Court releasing the attachment of bank accounts
Verchaska Infotech private Ltd vs Union of India and ors
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2274 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
VCES - Service Tax - High Court releasing the attachment of bank accounts
Verchaska Infotech private Ltd vs Union of India and ors
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2273 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Penalty imposable despite voluntary surrender, Disclosure to Buy peace of mind not relevant
MAK Data P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2272 (SC)
-
Disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if TDS paid before due date of filing return as described in s. 139(1)
M/s.Pratibha JV Vs. The DCIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2271 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 40(a)(ia), 201: The assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on interest payments, even if it has not claimed the same as deduction while computing its total income, the revenue is entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 201 of the Act for such failure.
AGREENCO FIBRE FOAM (P) LTD vs ITO
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2270 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Sections 40(a)(ia), 147, 194A & 201
-
Allows filing of revised return during scrutiny/ assessment.
CIT vs AXA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT LTD
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2269 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
S. 12AA, 2(15) - Charitable purpose - General public utility - investor protection fund (public object) - private club (not public object)
Inter-connected Stock Exchange, Investors Protection Fund (ISE IPF) vs DIT (Exemption)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2268 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 12AA, 2(15)
-
Donation received towards corpus of the Trust not to form part of income - Voluntary contributions received by the society of employees cannot be treated as income or trading receipt within the meaning of section 2(24), it cannot be said that the income of the assessee escaped assessment. Resultantly jurisdiction under section 147 was not correctly assumed.
PENTAFOUR SOFTWARE EMPLOYEES, WELFARE FOUNDATION vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2267 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 2(24), 147
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.