-
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. Guess work is not possible in case of search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 153A of the Act.
DCIT vs Sri K Babu Rao
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2559 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 143(3), 153A
-
Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 142(2A), 44 AB - A/y 2009-2010 - Maintenance of accounts - Special audit for collateral purpose u/s 142(2A) - Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the assessee. But opinion required to be formed by the Assessing Officer for exercise of power under the said provision must be based on objective criteria and not on the basis of subjective satisfaction. There is no gainsaying that recourse to the said provision cannot be had by the Assessing Officer merely to shift his responsibility of scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor.
Kaka Carpets vs CIT And Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2558 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 142(2A), 44 AB
-
Income Tax - Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, ss. 3(1), 9(2) and 9(4) - Building used for providing free medical aid must be exempted from paying building tax.
SH MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL vs STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2557 (SC)
-
Disallowance u/s 14A - Interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A as the taxpayer had sufficient own funds available for investment.
CIT vs GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2556 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 14A
-
S. 220: AO cannot exercise coercive measures to recove tax during the period available for filing an appeal
Dishnet Wireless Limited vs ACIT and Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2555 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 220
-
S. 147: Failure to compute capital gains u/s 50C does not lead to escapement of income
ITO vs Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2554 (ITAT-AGRA) · Income Tax Section 147, 50C
-
Where legal question was raised even first time before Tribunal, Tribunal was required to consider same in accordance with law
Sankeshwar Printers (P.) Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2553 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Where original order passed by Tribunal did not show that any ground relating to jurisdiction of ITO was raised by assessee, whether Tribunal committed error in recalling its order for not considering such ground.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAZA HUSSAIN CONTRACTOR
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2552 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
JDA - Without possession of the property, no construction can be taken. In 1996, Power of Attorney was executed to sell the flats, an irresistible inference that can be drawn from the material on record is that possession has been delivered under the agreement; payment of Rs.10 lakhs was paid, that is the reason why roughly about Rs.35 lakhs has been paid between 30.6.1994 and 31.5.1996. It is a joint development agreement.
SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2551 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
CAs only can conduct Audit under Service Tax not the Dept. Officers : HC
M/S A.C.L. Education Centre (P) Ltd. & Others V/s. Union Of India Thr.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue, New Delhi & Others
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2550 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Mere execution of development agreement not amounts to transfer
The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Shri Sadia Shaikh
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2549 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Coercive steps for recovery cannot be initiated till time to prefer an appeal exhausts
Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2548 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 54F Deduction not allowable if assessee owns more than ne residential house on the date of transfer
The ITO Vs. Ms. Apsara Bhavana Sai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2547 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Penalty imposed on legal heir without impleading as legal heir of the deceased not sustainable
Late Shri Chandrakant A. Gandhi By L/H. Shri Vinod C. Gandhi Vs. The ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2546 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Versus Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2545 (SC)
-
S. 153A/ 153C: Important principles of law relating to search assessments explained
V. K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2544 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Sectgion 153A, 153C
-
Merely because partners of Kaypee Developers are also directors of the assessee-company provisions of section 40A(2)(b) is not attracted.
ACIT vs Kamdhenu Home
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2543 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 40A(2)(b)
-
An assessment would be pending before Assessing Officer when such Assessing Officer has power to take action in respect of those assessment years. However, the power to take action in respect of the assessment for a particular assessment year, comes to an end, on the expiry of the period under Section 153 of the Act to make an assessment.
Shriniwas Machine Craft Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anothers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2542 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 153 & 245HA
-
Foreign Exchange – Penalty set aside - In the impugned orders of the Original Authority, as well as the Tribunal and the Division Bench, the sale effected by the Appellants on a rate higher than the rate prevailing in the market was not the basis for the alleged violation of paragraph 3 of the FLM read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA. We are convinced that the impugned orders by which the Appellants were found guilty of the violation of paragraph 3 of FLM read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA and the consequential imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- was wholly unjustified….. If the Appellants have parted with the penalty amount imposed under the impugned orders, the Respondent is directed to refund the same to the Appellants along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Tulip Star Hotels Ltd vs Special Director of Enforcement
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2541 (SC)
-
Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. the Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent assessee was higher then the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Puja Prints
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2540 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 55A(a)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.