-
Basic principles of condonation of delay as explained by Tribunal
Prashant Projects Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2359 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Disallowances made u/s 14A were unwarranted as assessee has not invested in shares for earning of dividend but acquired the controlling interest in the respective companies for doing the business. Ld. CIT(A) himself has admitted that assessee is doing the business and the business of the assessee company has been set up, therefore, there is no question that assessee has invested the funds for earning of dividend.
Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (OSD)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2358 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 14A
-
When the finding is that the assessee has indulged in circular and multiple transactions, by layering, what can be taxed is the peak credit and that too at the first point is acceptable and should be the manner of determining the correct income. If each of the layer is brought out tax, then it would be case of levy of income tax, multiple no. of times, on the same amount. Such levy of double or multiple taxes is against law and it would not be the right method of arriving at the correct amount of income.
Tarun Goyal vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2357 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 68
-
Where, the assessee, apart from furnishing the permanent account number of the creditor, has also furnished their balance sheet, copy of income tax return, confirmation, bank account etc. The amount advanced to the assessee is duly disclosed in the balance sheet of all the creditors. Even the assessee has also explained the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the creditors. The initial onus which lay upon the assessee was duly discharged. If the Assessing Officer wanted to examine the issue further, he could have very well issued notice under Section 131, failing that it cannot be said that assessee has not discharged the initial onus.
Shri Arihant Jain vs Income Tax Officer
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2356 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 68
-
No assessment order was passed either under Section 142(1)(a), 143(3) or 144 of the Act. Without passing the assessment order, there is no occasion to pass the re-assessment order under Section 147 of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.N. Sharma
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2355 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 142(1)(a), 143(3), 144
-
S. 50, 54EC - Capital gain arising of long-term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under section 54EC cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is created under section 50. In other words, legal fiction created under section 50 is though restricted to computation of capital gains, such deeming fiction cannot restrict application of section 54EC which allows exemption of capital gains, if assessee makes investment in the specified asset.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Aditya Medisales Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2354 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 50, 54EC
-
Hon`ble High court upheld the finding of Tribunal, that action of assessee for not deducting tax at source on conveyance allowance paid to its employees was based on bona fide belief, assessee could not be treated as assessee in default liable to interest under section 201(1A)
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another vs ITC Limited
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2353 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 201(1A)
-
Section 234B, 234C - Assessee is liable to pay advance tax as per the amended provisions by Finance Act, 2002 of Section 115JB of the Act for the relevant period.
CIT vs M/S KIRLOSKAR SYSTEMS LTD
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2352 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 234B, 234C
-
Section 80G(5)(iv) requires an institution or fund to maintain accounts of its receipts and expenditure but where the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), in his order has not alleged or stated that there was any such violation, exemption under section 80G could not be denied.
Director of Income-tax vs Neel Gagan Charitable Trust
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2351 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 80G(5)(iv)
-
Merger & Acquisition can be modes of "acquisition" of imported cars for the purposes of clause (a) of proviso to section 32(1). Transferee-company cannot be denied depreciation on imported motor cars acquired by it under scheme of merger effective from a date after 1-4-2001 on the ground that the imported motor cars were originally acquired by merged entities after 28-2-1975 but before 1-4-2001.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MIRA EXIM LTD
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2350 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 32(1)
-
A perusal of Section 139A(5A) shows that it puts an obligation on the person receiving any sum or income or amount from which tax has been deducted under the provisions of Chapter XVII( which include Section 194C and 194J) to intimate his permanent account number to the person responsible for deducting such tax under that Chapter.
Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another vs Gail (India)Ltd.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2349 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Income Tax Section 139A(5A), 272B,
-
Recovery without notice & providing reasonable time is gross violation of Court directions
M/s Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Vs. Addl. DIT(E)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2348 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
All government decisions can’t be seen with suspicion: SC
Pathan Mohammed, Suleman Rehmatkhan Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2347 (SC)
-
Amount received by partner on retirement is exempt from capital gains tax
Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Rajnish M Bhandari
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2346 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Amount Received by Partner On Retirement Not Chargeable To Tax
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III V/s. Mr. Riyaz A. Sheikh
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2345 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin : SC
Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2344 (SC)
-
Sell of minors’ share in property without court permission by guardian is invalid: SC
SAROJ VERSUS SUNDER SINGH & ORS.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2343 (SC)
-
Tribunal bound to consider all judgements cited during hearing of appeal
DATTANI AND CO Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2342 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
“Substantially question of law involves a debatable legal issue.” - Where Issue becomes debatable on the admission of substantial question of law against the Tribunal order by the High Court. In such a case penalty not imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ACIT vs Aditya Birla Centre
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2341 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
“Substantially question of law involves a debatable legal issue.” - Where Issue becomes debatable on the admission of substantial question of law against the Tribunal order by the High Court. In such a case penalty not imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Shri Yugal Kishore Jajoo vs Dy. CIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2340 (ITAT-INDORE) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.