-
Penalty without issuing show cause notice cannot sustain – HC
ABDUL KARIMHAJI UMARBHAI RASULBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2519 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Penalty u/s 45 (3A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is not mandatory.
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus NARENDRAKUMAR REVACHAND KOTAK
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2518 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Consideration for transfer of sales tax incentive taxable as revenue receipt
Sun-N-Sand Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy CIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2517 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Tax Audit applicable to Partners on Income from Partnership Firm
Usha A. Narayanan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2516 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Interest received on FDR made from grant received not taxable if forms part of grant
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus SAR INFRACON PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2515 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Commercial property cannot be treated as a residential property for mere showing rent income as Income from House Property
Mr. I.Ifthiqar Ashiq Vs. Income Tax Officer
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2514 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Provision for foreseeable loss made in accordance with guidelines of AS-7 allowable
The ACIT Vs. M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2513 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
80P(2)(a)(vi) - “Collective disposal of Labour” - Income should have been generated by a Co-operative by utilizing the labour of the members in a collective manner, if it wants to avail deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. The employment opportunity generated to its members cannot be considered as “Collective disposal of labour”.
ITO vs Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu & M/s. Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2512 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax Section 80P(2)(a)(vi)
-
Undisclosed income - there is rebuttable presumption under section 132(4A) that the documents belonged to the person and the contents being true and the assessee has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to show that the entries made in the diary/loose sheets were not income in the hands of the assessee.
Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs CIT(A) & Another Respondents
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2511 (HC-JHARKHAND) · Income Tax Section 132 & 158BC
-
Outstanding balances of creditors, the liabilities have been confirmed in the shape of affidavits. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jogendra Singh & Company
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2510 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Sections 44AB, 68, 144, 260A
-
ection 10(23C)(iiiae) - Hospital providing for maternity care has to deal with emergencies and on occasion, such hospitals have to provide emergent care which is often necessary to save the lives of the mother and the child. The views of CIT (A) and of Tribunal are not sustainable with reference to the provisions of sub clause (iiiae) of clause (23C) of Sec. 10.
Nehru Prasutika Aspatal Samiti vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2509 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 10(23C)(iiiae)
-
Business income” or as “Short term Capital gain” – Ld. CIT appears to be under the impression that if the gains are assessed as “Business income”, the assessee would be disclosing the value of “Closing stock” of immovable properties and it will increase the profit amount declared by the assessee.
Shri K.V. Balagangadharan Deepa vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2508 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Receipt basis or receipt basis - SC dismissed SLP filed by revenue against High court judgment reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 50352 (DELHI), however question of law is kept open.
CIT vs INDIAN SUGAR & GEN.INDUS.EXP.IMP.COR.LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2507 (SC)
-
ITAT bench following the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the reported in (2013) 7 TaxCorp (DT) 55034 (ALLAHABAD) and the recent order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2267 (ITAT Bangalore), hold that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made only with reference to the amounts that are outstanding as on 31st March, 2009. Therefore, to examine whether the payments made to eight of the sundry creditors mentioned in the CIT's order is outstanding as on 31.03.2009, we remit the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Ariand Marakala.
Varun Transport vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2506 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Rejecting books of account - Assessing Officer could not refer matter to DVO for valuation of investment made by assessee for construction of factory building.
Commissioner of Income-tax vs Raghuraji Agro Industries (P.) Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2505 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Unexplained investment u/s 69 was sustained - No reference for valuation to the DVO can be made without rejecting the books of account. The AOs should keep this position of law in mind before making references to the DVO for valuation.
Nirpal Singh Prop. M/s Aujla Filling Station vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2504 (HC-P&H) · Income Tax Section 69
-
S. 54EC - Capital gain - Sale got completed when sale deeds were registered, handing over the possession or date of full payment irrelevant.
Late R Krishnaswamy vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2503 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax Section 54EC
-
S. 2(14) – Capital gains on sale of agriculture land - There is no enabling provision in the income tax prescribing that even if the assessee’s income is exempt by a provision, then it can be forcibly brought into the tax net by assuming the assessee’s activity to be adventure in the nature of trade. The sale of investment portfolio is always taxed as capital gains. Thus agriculture land in terms of sec. 2(14) i.e. not being an asset; its transfer will neither attract capital gain tax nor can be treated as business income. Therefore the assessee’s gains were profits from sale of specified agriculture land which does not come within the definition of asset as prescribed u/s 2(14) and by virtue of sec. 2(1A)(a) read with sec. 2(14)(iii) r.w.s. 10(1) the assessee’s gains from sale of such agriculture land are exempt income.
Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2502 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section S. 2(14)
-
Section 68 - Cash credit – Existence of the creditor`s creditworthiness is one of the most important factors. The assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, addition made of Rs. 10 lac by the AO has been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2501 (HC-AP) · Income Tax Section 68
-
CIT-DR’s behaviour termed “totally irresponsible, contemptuous and malicious”. Costs imposed & action for contempt of court to be initiated.
ACIT vs Laksons Footwear P. Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2500 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.