-
“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.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LIQUID INVESTMENT and TRADING CO
(2010) TaxCorp(LJ) 2339 (HC-DELHI) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
CENVAT CREDIT - Genuine assessee cannot be penalized for the fault of his seller manufacturer for non deposit of Excise Duty. Requirement of taking "reasonable steps" does not mean that assessee is required to verify from department whether duty stands paid by supplier because that would be practically impossible and would lead to transactions getting delayed; therefore, assessee is entitled to credit even if supplier has not paid duty to department.
Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kay Kay Industries
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2338 (SC)
-
No Penalty U/s. 271AAA on declaring an income admitted during search & payment of taxes thereon
The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri A. N. Annamalaisamy (HUF)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2337 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Section 40A(3) - Single transaction - Payment in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- for purchase the scrap from the Railways. Hon`ble High court upheld ITAT ruling reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (A.T.) 28131 (BANGALORE). Assessee is a scrap dealer purchasing scrap from the Railways. Admittedly Railways is a concern of the Union of India. If any cash is paid towards purchase of the scrap the same cannot be disputed by the Revenue since such payment has to be considered as a legal tender. If the Revenue is of the opinion that no such payment has been made to the Railways, we could have considered their grievance.
CIT vs Sri Devendrappa M. Kalal
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2336 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 40A(3)
-
Bottling LPG gas to Gas Cylinders amounts to 'manufacture' for the purpose of section 80IB
PUTTUR PETRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2335 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80IB
-
Release of the cash and jewellery – If there is no tax liability, pending against the petitioner in respect of relevant assessment years, corresponding to the search and seizure operations, there is no justification in law to continue to keep the cash and jewellery in the possession of the income tax department. The filing of the income tax appeals by the department in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi will not prima facie justify the possession of the cash and jewellery. The income tax department, however, may insist upon some security for releasing the cash and jewellery and for that purpose if the attachment of the apartment as aforesaid is still continuing, the department may consider to keep the attachment alive until final disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Writ petition is disposed of with directions that in case the petitioner applies for release of cash and jewellery, the said application will be decided by the ITO 23 (2), New Delhi within a month.
Preeti Varma vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2334 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
S. 54EC - The assessee cannot be charged to capital gains when short term gains of long terms capital assets get invested in the areas specified under the law.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs POLESTAR INDUSTRIES
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2333 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax Section 54EC
-
Merely because the assessee withdrew the deduction, conceded to the demand of the department and paid tax and interest, as there is no malafide intention, the assessee cannot be imposed penalty.
CIT vs Oscar Udyog Limited
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2332 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 133A, 80IB(10)
-
Set off of loss pertaining to earlier year in which loss return was filed belatedly i.e., after the due date, does not result in concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c).
CIT vs MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2331 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c)
-
Sub-section (4) of Section 80P was brought into statute for prohibiting deduction to Co-operative Banks only and not to co-operative credit societies.
ITO vs The Kasipalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2330 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Income Tax Section 80P(4)
-
Application u/s. 254(2) - Power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act.
Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2329 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax Section 254(2)
-
Computation of Book Profit under section 115JB - disallowance under section 14A- Whether the amount disallowed u/s 14A can be added while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.
Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs. The Additional Commissioner Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2328 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 14A, 115JB, 41(1), 28(i) and 28(iv), 2(14)
-
S. 194L - There cannot be any dispute that under Section 194L(2) proviso of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no deduction shall be made under Section 194L from any payment made on or before 01.06.2000. Thus, deduction made by the Land Acquisition Officer towards income tax, out of the compensation awarded is illegal. The Land Acquisition Officer could not have deducted any amount from out of the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner after 01.06.2000. In the matter on hand, compensation is awarded to the petitioner after the year 2000. Therefore, the amount so deducted has to be returned to the petitioner.
Ashok B. Jadhav vs CIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2327 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 194L
-
The expenses for putting up new median hoardings has generated income to assessee not only for this concerned assessment year but also for the next three succeeding assessment years. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the in treating a part of the expenses as capital in nature and granting depreciation on the same.
ABLE ADVERTISING vs ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2326 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Blood bank is not a hospital & not entitled to exemption U/s. 11
Advance Transfusion- Medicine Research Foundation Vs. The ADIT (Exemption)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2325 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT not happy with lackluster attempt of Counsels
Shri Paresh S. Shah Vs. ITO
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2324 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Registration of FIR is mandatory –SC
Lalita Kumari Versus Govt. of U.P. & Or
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2323 (SC)
-
HC ask ICAI to Provide writers for disabled students
REENA BHATIA Versus THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2322 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT bench upheld the order passed by CIT(A) that the provisions of section 194-I of the Act to deduct TDS on the lease premium paid by the assessee is not attracted. Further uphold CIT(A) to delete the demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
Income-tax Officer -(TDS) vs Navi Mumbai SEZ (P.) Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2321 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · income tax Section 194I, 201(1), 201(1A)
-
Technical know-how is capital asset for depreciation purposes and sale thereof taxable as capital gain.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Wintac Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2320 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 48
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.