-
153A/144 r.w.s 143(3) – Mere suspicion on document howsoever strong does not partake the character of evidence.
ACIT vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3420 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 153A: Addition in a search assessment for a A.Y which is not pending can be made only if incriminating material is found during search.
Sanjay Aggarwal vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3419 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Expl. (a) to S. 6(1)(c) - ITAT extends benefit of 182 days for determination of residential status for self-employed professionals going abroad.
ACIT vs Jyotinder Singh Randhawa
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3418 (ITAT-DELHI) · Expl. (a) to S. 6(1)(c) - ITAT extends benefit of 182 days for determination of residential status for self-employed professionals going abroad.
-
There is no provision in Income tax Act which permits withdrawal of an appeal, once it is filed, and registered. Once right of appeal is exhausted, by party concerned, and the appeal is filed before appropriate Appellate Authority, who after receiving same has registered it, there is no provision in the statute permitting withdrawal thereof.
Yogendra Prasad Santosh Kumar vs CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3417 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
S. 271(1)(c) - The assessee disclosed the income in the returned income, made a claim by way of a note and the law does not bar or prohibit an assessee from making a claim which he believes is a plausible claim. The assessee's claim is duly supported by the opinion of a Senior Advocate. Department may or may not accept the assessee's claim as correct but the law does not bar an assessee from making a claim and the denial of such claim by the Revenue will not make the assessee liable for penalty of concealment of income. All the relevant facts were disclosed by the assessee and it is not the case of the Revenue that any facts disclosed by the assessee in the return of income were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. ITAT hold that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justified in the case under appeal before us.
AAA Portfolios Pvt.Ltd vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3416 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 148 - Escaped assessment - Tax Liability - Merely making this bald assertion was not enough that there was a failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts without giving any details thereof. There were no details given by revenue as to which fact or material was not disclosed by petitioner that led to it's income escaping assessment. The impugned notice u/s 148 was bad in law.
Bombay Stock Exchange Limited Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (Exemption)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3415 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
TDS deductible u/s 194 C in case assessee took certain vehicles on hire for carrying its students and staff while making payments of hiring charges to transport contractor
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs Lotus Valley Education Society
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3414 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
ITAT issues strictures against AO & CIT & fines them for filing a frivolous appeal
ITO vs. Growel Energy Co. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3413 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT for becoming an agricultural land – i) It is necessary that the land must be cultivable i.e. it must be capable of cultivation. ii) The revenue record even though are good evidence to determine the character of the land but are not conclusive evidence. iii) Actual or ordinary use of the land for agricultural purpose at the time of sale and prior to that is a relevant fact to hold that the land is an agricultural land. iv) Merely temporary stoppage of the agricultural operation in the land will not make it to be a non-agricultural land. v) Character of the land is not determined by the nature of the products raised. So long as the land is used or can be used for raising valuable plants or crops or trees or any other purpose of husbandry, the land will be regarded to be an agricultural land. vi) The situation of the land in a village or in an urban area is not by itself determinative of its character. Whether the land has been developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities.
ACIT vs Shri Durgadas K. Prabhu Shastri
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3412 (ITAT-PANAJI)
-
Where a revised return filed is treated as non-est since the original return was not filed within due date mentioned in section 139(1), the period of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) needs to be computed with reference to date of filing original return of income. Notice issued u/s. 143(2) beyond the period stated in the proviso to section 143(2)(ii) does not fall within the term `any mistake, defect or omission’ stated in section 292B. The provisions of section 292BB cannot extend to a case where the question of limitation is raised on admitted factual position in a given case.
Amiti Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3411 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Profit from sale of agricultural land, which is not a “Capital Asset”, cannot be included for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.
ACIT vs The Nilgiri Tea Estate Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3410 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Maximum marginal rate u/s. 167A - Circular No.320 dated 11-1-1982 - It was never the intention of the Legislature to hit those societies and charitable religious trusts etc., and other social and sports clubs etc., to tax them at the maximum marginal rate. Assessee is one of the registered society, sec. 167A is not applicable to it and hence the assessee is chargeable to tax on its total income at the rate ordinarily applicable to an AOP and not maximum marginal rate.
Defence/ Govt. Official Site Owners Association vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3409 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Whether a litigant can take advantage of a decision in another litigation belatedly? Held, The assessees who chose not to lay any challenge, cannot seek to stake an equal claim to benefiting from the subsequent outcome of litigation pursued by another assessee, since its own proceedings before the income tax authorities attain finality, when it refrains from pursuing any challenge. the reassessment order cannot be sought to be indicted in as much as the finality which attaches itself to the reassessment order cannot be affected, merely because a later judgment of the Gujarat High Court held the amendment to be arbitrary, to the extent of its retrospectivity.
CIT vs Kultar Exports
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3408 (HC-DELHI)
-
Amendment in F.A 2008 - Provision u/s 2(15) of the Act will not apply in respect of the first three limbs i.e. relief to the poor; education or medical relief. Thus, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor; education or medical relief, it will constitute ‘charitable purpose’ even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of the commercial activities. Activities of the assessee would fall within the definition of “charitable purpose” as per Section 2(15) of the Act and, therefore, would be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
DIT(E) vs AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3407 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations - Assessee society had been only importing raw materials for distribution amongst its members, the principles of mutuality will squarely apply and therefore, the provisos of S. 2(15) of the Act would not be applicable.
The All India Skin & Hide Tanners and Merchant Association vs JCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3406 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c): The giving up of a bogus claim for deduction to eschew inquiry by AO/ TPO is not voluntary & bona fide & attracts levy of penalty
Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3405 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT issues strictures against AO & CIT & fines them for filing a frivolous appeal
ITO vs. Growel Energy Co. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3404 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) should not be made on the basis of subsequent amendment made with retrospective effect. Assessee engaged in business of distributing cable signals not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J for AY 2009-10 on ‘Pay channel charges’ payment.
Kerala Vision Ltd vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3403 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Whether Section 40A(3) of the Act is applicable in respect of payments which are made through the bank account in AXIS Bank Ltd through ATM as the creditor has withdrawn from the said Account through ATM and thereby no cash payment in involved.
Doshi Vijaykumar Motilal vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3402 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT bench in its elaborate order of 68 pages on Capital gain on agriculture land compulsorily acquired by state Government under Land Acquisition Act, held the requirement using the land for two years immediately preceding the date of transfer cannot be a pre-condition for the purpose of section 2(14) of the Act.
Shri M J Thomas vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3401 (ITAT-COCHIN)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.