-
Capital Gain - JDA- Consideration accrued is also relevant, to be taxed once transfer of the capital asset takes place. Court injunction cannot be said not willing to perform its obligation. Assessee’s plea that the possession was to be given only at the time of registration of the JDA, is not correct. Once irrevocable power was given then it cannot be said that the possession was not given.
Shri Satnam Singh Kainth Ex-MP vs vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2759 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
Determining the NRI status – Exceeding 182 days due to illegal impounding of passport - over stay caused by such untenable restriction of movement out of India should be excluded while calculating the no. of days of stay in India.
Shri Suresh Nanda vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2758 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 2(47) - Capital Gain – Date of Transfer - Wherever a Rectification Deed is executed, it rectifies the original transaction and is applicable from the date when the original transaction took place. The Sale Deed in this case was originally executed and registered on 4.7.2008. Therefore, the transfer of the land has taken place during the A.Y 2009 -10.
Income-tax Officer vs Smt. Myra Muriel Paul
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2757 (ITAT-PANAJI) · Section 2(47)
-
S. 40(a)(ia) - Prospectively or Retrospectively - Voluntarily offered - Tax deducted from labour charges u/s 194C - Tax paid before the due date
Shri Vijay G. Mandave vs Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2756 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · 40(a)(ia)
-
Violation of the provisions u/s 13(1)(c) - Trust uses its income for construction of building on the land belonging to one of the trustees amounts to applying the income of the trust for the benefit of the trustee which is certainly falls under section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Natya Sankalpaa
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2755 (ITAT-COCHIN) · 13(1)(c)
-
Section 14A would have no applicability in relation to deductions to be made while computing total income under Chapter IV
CIT vs BANASKANTHA DIST.CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2754 (HC-GUJARAT) · 14A
-
Write-off of irrecoverable advances is not a “transfer” and the loss cannot be claimed as a capital loss u/s 45
Crompton Greaves Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2753 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The usage of the land by the purchaser not relevant factor to find whether the land is agricultural land or not?
JCIT vs Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2752 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Chapter XIV-B do not preclude AO to proceed against assessee by issuing notice u/s 148
Gudwill Housing Limited vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2751 (HC-KARNATAKA) · 158BD
-
Application of fund for construction of the building, is not the charitable activity.
Kamma Sangham vs The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2750 (HC-AP)
-
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as 'securities' stood excluded from the definition of "brokerage or commission" under Section 194-H. Hon`ble high court rejects submission of the revenue to adopt a restrictive interpretation because unless this were done, would exclude a large number of transactions from the ambit of Section 194-H where 'commission or brokerage' is paid in relation to any transaction relating to securities.
CIT vs Tandon & Mahendra
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2749 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 80-IB(10): If developer does not (without just cause) develop to full extent of FSI, a part of the sale proceeds has to treated as being for sale of FSI and denied s. 80-IB(10) deduction
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs MOON STAR DEVELPERS
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2748 (HC-GUJARAT) · 80IB(10)
-
The effect of s. 80IA(9) is that s. 80-IA deduction has to be reduced for s. 80HHC deduction in all cases and not only when the combined deduction exceeds the profits
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs ATUL INTERMEDIATES
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2747 (HC-GUJARAT) · 80IA(9), 80HHC
-
Factual situation relevant for allowing deduction under section 80-IB, not approved plan
CIT vs ABAD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2746 (HC-KERALA) · 80IB(10)
-
Reassessment - Notice after four years - Conditions must be reflected in notice itself - Conditions that officer must be satisfied that there has been an escapement in assessment of income, which is chargeable to tax because of failure by assessee to file return under section 139. Notice and consequential steps not valid.
Tecumesh Products India Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2745 (HC-AP) · Income-tax Section 147, 148
-
Criminal proceedings u/s 276B are independent of recovery proceedings under Sec 201(1) and 201(1A).
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD and Sri VIJAY MALLYA vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2744 (HC-KARNATAKA) · 276B
-
Criminal proceedings u/s 276B are independent of recovery proceedings under Sec 201(1) and 201(1A).
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD and Sri VIJAY MALLYA vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2743 (HC-KARNATAKA) · 276B
-
Second Proviso introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01-04-2013 to section 40(a)(ia) operates prospectively and not retrospectively.
Sea Food Park India Limited vs Dy.CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2742 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Second proviso to Sec 40(a)(ia) inserted w.e.f. April 1, 2013, being clarificatory in nature, should have retrospective application.
ITO vs Gaurimal Mahajan & Sons
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2741 (ITAT-PUNE) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Hasty Recovery action may be treated as Contempt – Bombay HC to AO
A. T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2740 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.