-
S. 271(1)(c) - The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings were separate and distinct. Though the addition was confirmed in the Appellate proceedings, the Assessing Authority was bound to re-appreciate the material available on record in the penalty proceedings. The Assessee had filed certificates issued by the Competent Authority under the VDIS, 1997 to show that the creditors had sufficient balances to advance funds to the Assessee. Unfortunately these certificates were not produced before the lower Authority. The present Tribunal was the final fact finding Authority. Therefore, the factual aspects had to be settled at this level. The amounts disclosed by the creditors under the VDIS had to be taken into account on the basis of the certificates issued by the Competent Authority. The Assessing Authority had to examine the certificate and find out whether the amounts disclosed under the VDIS, 1997 were available with the creditors to advance the money to the taxpayer. In the absence of the certificates issued by the Competent Authority under VDIS, 1997, the Lower Authorities had no occasion to consider them. Therefore, the present Tribunal was of the opinion that the certificates issued by the Competent Authority had to be considered by the Assessing Authority. Accordingly the orders of the Lower Authorities were set aside and the entire issue was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Authority. Appeal by taxpayer allowed for statistical purposes.
Parisons Exports Inc vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2599 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
TDS not deductible on Payments to banks for utilization of credit card facilities are in
JDS Apparels Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2598 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
10(23C)(iiiad) - An exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiib) cannot be either claimed or granted unless all the ingredients as reflected therein are satisfied/fulfilled. Merely because the Government gave lands and development funds and created assets of the University whereby it acquired income generation capacity would not mean the "income" that the University is generating from other sources will have to be treated as financial aid by the Government. If we say so, perhaps every such institution, which admittedly, make profit, also will have to be exempted under sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C).
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2597 (HC-KARNATAKA) · sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C)
-
Assessee cannot claim exemption U/s. 54 on two disparately placed properties
Shri A. Kodanda Rami Reddy v. The Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2596 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Interest on Income Tax refund should be spread over the years for which interest is granted
Shri M. Jaffer Saheb (Decd.) Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2595 (HC-AP)
-
Unclaimed Liabilities Not Taxable As Income Even If Creditors Not Traceable or Non-Genuine
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2594 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
SC dismisses SLP – Disallowance of reimbursement of expenses to agents U/s. 40(a)(ia)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2593 (SC)
-
Development agreements are NOT joint ventures - The words `joint venture' or `collaboration' in the title of an agreement or even in the body of the agreement will not make the transaction a joint venture, if there are no provisions for shared control of interest or enterprise and shared liability for losses.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2592 (SC)
-
DVO report cannot be basis of any addition of undisclosed income during search proceding
CIT vs Vasudev Construction
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2591 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 158BD, 143(2), 142(1)
-
S. 220: AO’s action of coercive recovery is illegal and shocks the conscience. The Tribunal cannot remain a silent spectator to such illegal action
DIT(E) vs ITAT and The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2590 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 220
-
Explained delay should be understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay Bona fide reasons and negligence if any should be considered for condoning the delay.
Chandra vs Hari Singh and others Plaintiffs
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2589 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
Expenditure on discounting/factoring charges is not in the nature of interest for purposes of TDS u/s 194A or disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)
Income-tax Officer vs MKJ Enterprises Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2588 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax 194A, 40(a)(ia)
-
For s. 14A/ Rule 8D(2)(ii), interest expenditure on loans taken for taxable business purposes has to be excluded.
Income-tax Officer vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2587 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Income Tax Section 14A, rule 8D
-
SC sets aside Delhi HC judgment in SIN Oceanic and NetApp BV, wherein HC held that AAR applications inadmissible once tax return filed; SC calls for fresh ruling in accordance with law.
SIN OCEANIC SHIPPING ASA NORWAY vs AAR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2586 (SC)
-
Method of accounting - AO simply by rejecting the method of accounting followed by the assessee is not proper since assessments have been completed in other assessment years cases based on the same accounting method. The assessment was not based on the seized material but, it is based only on wrong accounting standards followed by the assessee-company in recognising the revenue and hence, the only issue is to be adjudicated upon in this appeal is whether the AO is right in rejecting the accounting method regularly employed by the assessee and substituting the same with accounting method as per AS-7 and computation of profit based on the same. The assessing officer has taken estimated revenue from the projects without considering the fact that whether the units are sold or not. In other words, profit is being estimated on unsold stock also. As per revised AS-7 2002, does not apply to the builders and real estate developers. The method followed by the assessee company cannot be called as an unreasonable method and any change in the method would only be tax neutral.
Asst. CIT Vs. Universal Realtors Pvt. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2585 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Sections 147/ 148 of Income Tax Act not applicable to Block assessment under Chapter XIVB of the Act.
ACIT vs Sunil Kumar Jain
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2584 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · Income Tax Section Sections 147, 148, 158BC
-
It is not enough for the AO to merely state his “satisfaction” i.e. conclusion that conditions attracting penalty u/s 271AAA are satisfied. The AO should also state his “reasons” for the ‘conclusion’/'satisfaction’. CIT is also not justified in dismissing assessee’s revision application against the penalty by simply affirming AO’s order without examining whether conditions stated in section 271AAA for imposing penalty were satisfied and without recording any reasons.
Crossings Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissionerof Income Tax (Central) And Another
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2583 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 271AAA
-
S. 14A / Rule 8D disallowance cannot be made without showing how assessee’s claim/ computation is wrong
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs REI AGRO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2582 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Income Tax Section 14A, Rule 8D
-
Interest on interest paid due to default in payment of home loan instalments is not deductible u/s 24.
Master Naman Kumar vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2581 (HC-P&H) · Income Tax Section 24
-
Employees’ PF/ ESI Contribution is also covered by s. 43B & allowable as a deduction if paid by “due date” of filing ROI.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs VIJAY SHREE LIMITED
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2580 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Income Tax Section 43(B), 36(1)(va) read with s. 2(24)(x)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.