-
CBI has no legal existence, Creation of CBI illegal – HC
Sh Navendra Kumar Versus Union of India & Another Respondents
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2299 (HC-GAUHATI)
-
Transfer fee & TDR premium not exempt on the ground of mutuality for Co-op Hsg Societies
Hatkesh Co.op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 21(1)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2298 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Taxation of fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) & disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS
Metro & Metro Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2297 (ITAT-AGRA)
-
S. 195 TDS to be withhold only on share of Non-resident Seller in co-owned property
Shri R. Prakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2296 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Rule 46A – Additional Evidences cannot be accepted without allowing AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the said evidences
ITO Vs. Mrs. Anvita Abbi
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2295 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Maternity is a natural process and could not be termed as illness or disease
D.C.I.T. vs. Nehru Prasutika Asptal Samiti
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2294 (ITAT-AGRA)
-
Immunity From Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) Available For Belated Returns
Income Tax Officer (Central) v/s. Mr. Gope M. Rochlani
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Judgment of jurisdictional High Court not binding if there is a later contrary judgment of non-jurisdictional HC
Shri Prakash Vasantbhai Golwala Vs. The ACIT Circle-5, Surat
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2292 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Foreign exchange forward contract Gain/Loss to Assessee engaged in exports business : Speculative or Business?
London Star Diamond Company (I) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Rg 5(2)
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2291 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When the amounts in the Savings Bank account of the appellant remained unexplained, definitely the AO was justified in treating as unexplained money under Section 69A.
K V MATHEW vs ITO
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2290 (HC-KERALA) · Income Tax Section 69A
-
Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) does not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Making an incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Levy of penalty is not justified merely because the assessee has claimed certain expenditure that expenditure is not eligible in view of the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act and for that reason, expenditure is disallowed.
DCIT vs Roop Singh Bagga
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2289 (ITAT-INDORE) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 40(a)(ia)
-
ITAT rejects Merilyn principle, Payments to Holding Co for services without TDS disallowed Sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance for nondeduction of tax at source applies not only to amounts payable as on March 31 but also to amounts paid during the year; Rejects assessee's reliance on SB ruling in Merylin Shipping; Followed HC rulings in Crescent Export and Sikandarkhan Tunvar; Quashed assessee’s contention that expenditure for which the disallowance has been made was actual reimbursement; Various services and infrastructure facility provided by holding company under a composite agreement amounts to works contracts, liable for TDS u/s 194C; Rejects assessee's contention that work refers to production of something tangible.
STCI Commodities Limited vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2288 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Section 244A(1)(b) explanation that the department cannot dispute that the assessee is entitled to interest on refund of all payments of tax in excess of actual tax found due. It is found that if any self-assessed tax paid and adjusted against the demand was later found to be refunded, then the assessee will be entitled to get interest under Section 244A (1) (b) of the Act on such excess tax adjusted against demand.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT Co.
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2287 (HC-KERALA) · Income Tax Section 244A(1)(b)
-
Law of jurisdictional High Court is not binding if there is a later contrary judgement of non-jurisdictional High Court. S. 22: Property used by firm in which assessee-owner is partner is not used for assessee’s business & not entitled for exemption
Shri Prakash Vasantbhai Golwala vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Disallowance of Commission paid - Increase the commission from 1% to 2.5% - AO had permitted commission in the absence of any other evidence to prove the same at 1% of the total turnover taking into account the commission paid by similar agencies. It is not in dispute that none of the vouchers produced by the assessee was signed by any of the persons who had received the commission. Therefore, normally such amounts are to be added to the income of the assessee. For deletion of such income, necessarily evidence has to be adduced. No evidence worth appreciating was available other than a general contention that commission had been paid. Assessing Officer permitted allowance of 1% as commission and there is no any reason for the appellate authority to have increased the said commission to 2.5%. Such an approach has been made purely based on surmises.
CIT vs SRI E S JOSE ,PROP. A2Z TILES & FLOORINGS
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2285 (HC-KERALA)
-
The provisions of S. 139(5) gives a right to an assessee to file a revised return of income if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. The assessee has filed the revised return on finding that the disallowance required to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not made in the original return of income and further the claim of “loss on clearance sale” was not made therein.
R Kasi Vishwanathan & Bros vs ACIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2284 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income tax Section 139(5), 40(a)(ia)
-
Loss on forward foreign exchange contracts is incidental to the exports business and not a “speculation loss“. However, if the contract is prematurely cancelled, the assessee has to justify the loss
London Star Diamond Company (I) P. Ltd vs DCIT
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2283 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 43(5)
-
No interest under section 234B can be levied on account of such retrospective amendment in section 115JB. Further once the interest income is not taxable in the hands of the recipient and was exempted by the Government of India, then there is no question of TDS on the interest paid and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is called for.
Essar Steel India Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2282 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax Section 234B, 115JB, 40(a)(i)
-
Hon`ble high court upheld the order passed by ITAT ruling reported in (2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 1654 (ITAT-PANAJI) held that, Trading advance cannot be regarded as loans and advances for applying the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Payment to a non shareholder cannot be regarded as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Revenue cannot take a different view in the case of the assessee for the same agreement once it has accepted.
ACIT vs M/s. Britto Amusement Pvt Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2281 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax Section 2(22)(e)
-
Statute does not recognize the defences " to avoid litigation, buy peace" under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
MAK Data P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2280 (SC) · 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.