-
S. 2(22)(e) - Loan and advances - Deemed dividend - Any payment by any company of any sum representing a part of the assets by way of advance would come within the mischief of deemed dividend. It would seem that deposits made by a closely-held company would also be covered by the expressions advance or loan. Advances given by a company to its shareholders should be treated as payment out of accumulated profits of the company, whether capitalised or not, and should be treated as dividend and would go to reduce the tax liability, whenever such tax liability was required to be determined. Assessee failed to establish that substantial part of the business of company was money lending - Lower Authorities rightly observed that amount of Rs. 37,28,059/- was to be included in the income of assessee as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Krishna Gopal Maheshwari vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2699 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Assessing Officer not to take advantage of the assessee’s ignorance and/or mistake
Ideal Homes Cooperative Building Society Ltd vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2698 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 139(5), 80P(2)(d)
-
S. 80- O, assessee is rendering services in India to a foreign company, hence he is not entitled for any deduction.
H Raghavendra Rao vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2697 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80-O
-
S. 80IA(4) - Developed the existing road median, erected bus shelters and light poles for its advertisement business, cannot be treated as infrastructure development. Benefit under Section 80-IA can be extended only to those assessees who have developed infrastructure facility as defined under sub-Section (4) of Section 80- IA. In the instant case, the assessee has not developed road or a toll road, bridge, highway or a rail system. The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the questions of law in these appeals are held in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the authorities below are up held.
CIT vs SKYLINE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2696 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80IA(4)
-
It is only the objects of a trust as declared in the trust deed which would govern its right of exemption under Section 11 or 12.
CIT vs DAWOODI BOHARA JAMAT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2695 (SC) · Income Tax Section 11,12, 13(1)(b)
-
S. 10(14)(i) - Normal dress worn by employees in office is not ‘uniform’ for the purposes of exemption uniform allowance u/s 10(14)(i).
ONGC vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2694 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income Tax Section 10(14)(i)
-
Sections 11, 12, 12AA - "corpus funds" - "Application of funds" - Granting registration does not ipse dixit entitle the assessee to get the benefit under Section 11 or 12. Investment made in immovable property - Donations so received are to be considered as normal donation and cannot be considered as donations towards corpus fund. Commercial complex was not used for any of the objects for which the trust was created but had been used to let out to commercial organizations to earn rent.
KAMMA SANGHAM vs DIT(E)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2693 (HC-AP) · Sections 11, 12, 12AA
-
Provident Fund – Interest under Section 7Q of the Act for belated remittances - Supreme Court upheld that 7Q dues regarding imposition of Interest for belated remittance under the Act is not appealable before the Tribunal, if EPF Authority passes an independent order laiming interest separately under section 7Q from that of 7A dues.
Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2692 (SC)
-
Hon`ble High court upheld the order passed by ITAT reported in (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2717 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
CIT vs Sri Sitendranarayan Mahendra Narayan Rai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2691 (HC-AP) · Section 143(1), 147, 2(47)(v), 53A of TPA
-
Unregistered agreement of sale
Sri Sitendranarayan Mahendra Narayan Rai vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2690 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 143(1), 147, 2(47)(v), 53A of TPA
-
Old Government Circular prescribing the guidance value for stamp duty can be placed reliance by the AO to reopen the assessments u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act.
CIT vs M L Sridhar
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2689 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 147 r.w.s 148
-
Non deduction of tax - Payment cannot be considered as payment towards work executed by GAIL and HPCL in the course of work contract. Reimbursement of salary to the deputed personnel would not attract deduction of tax at source.
Deputy CIT vs. Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2688 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The word “contribution” used in Clause(b) of Section 43B means the contribution of the employer and the employee. Employees PF contribution deposited before due date of filing of tax return is eligible for deduction to employer.
ESSAE TERAOKA PVT LTD vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2687 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Sections 2(24)(x), 14A, 36(1)(va), 43B, 139(1), 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 260A, rule 8D
-
Set off - MAT credit - Interest under Sections 234B and 234C - once this benefit is confirmed from 01.04.2007, when Section 115JAA was introduced, the legal position is the same and the Explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2006, which came into effect from 01.04.2007, is only clarificatory. Therefore, the condition is not applicable for the assessee for the period prior to 01.04.2007 and it is rightly rejected by both the appellate authorities.
CIT vs BPL LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2686 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax - Sections 115JAA, 115JB, 143(1), 143(3), 234B
-
Merely because the assessee did not have any business income cannot be a reason to conclude that there is a cessation of business activities.
ITO vs Nandaki Business Solutions Pvt.Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2685 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Deductions under sections 29 to 43D of the Act
-
Addition has been made by mere disallowance on cane cess not paid u/s 43B, Bonus not paid u/s 43B and FBT debited to P&L A/C. Disallowance does not mean furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income. Similarly, addition on account of suspense a/c does not pertain to year under consideration, so issue a levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise on this issue well. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eye, as discussed by the learned first appellate authority in the impugned order.
DCIT vs Ajnala Co. Op. Sugar Mills Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2684 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
Section 10(23C) – “any income” - Whether all receipts of the assessee would fall within the term “ any income”.
ACIT vs Quilon Medical Trust Medicity
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2683 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Section 10(23C)
-
Delay of 784 days in filing the appeal - Delay is due to failure of the Chartered Accountant to file the appeals before the CIT(A), the assessee cannot be penalized.
Premier Marine Exports vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2682 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Chit dividend received taxable u/s 28(iii) - Mere participating in a scheme offered by the third party, wherein others also joined, does not, in any manner put forth a principle of mutuality.
V Rajkumar vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2681 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 28(iii)
-
Revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier.
ACIT vs Precot Meridian Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2680 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 139(1), 139(5), 80IA, 80AC
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.