-
Language in Secs. 194C/J/H/I mandates deduction of tax at source by a person who makes the payment.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29451 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Since the dividend income would be exempt in the hands of the assessee in terms of Sec. 10(34) r.w.s. 115-O, there would not be any requirement to file Income Tax Return for the assessee.
Liston Investment Ltd Vs ITO-12(3)(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(34)
-
Since the quantum of interest charged under Section 234-D of the Income Tax Act in the present case is lesser than Rs.50,00,000/- as stated in the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tax Case Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
S.Duraipandi & S.Thalavaipandian Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29449 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Culpable mental state presumed u/s 278E would come into play only in a prosecution for any offence, but such presumption can be applied only when basic ingredient for constituting an offence is established.
Forzza Projects Private Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29448 (HC-KERALA) · Section 276C(2)
-
Even as per the amended provisions of Sec.254(2A), the assessee has paid more than 50% of the total demand except for AY 2014-15 which can be adjusted with the extra amount deposited by the assessee.
Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29447 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Information discovered during course of search, if capable of generating the satisfaction for issuing notice u/s 158BD, cannot become altogether irrelevant for further action.
Manorama Devi Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29446 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · Section 158BD
-
The payment made by the assessee is in the nature of royalty as defined under Explanation 2(1) to Section 9(1)(vi) and liable for TDS u/s 195.
Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29445 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195
-
Section 54F(1) is a mandatory and substantive provision while section 54F(4) is only a procedural section.
Ashok Kumar Wadhwa Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29444 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F
-
Where, procedural rules result in miscarriage or travesty of its purpose, such rules sometimes have to be passed over in the larger interest of justice.
Jaykrishna Dharmeshbhai Pathak Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In absence of primary facts with regard to source of investment, Revenue has rightly recorded that the assessee has not furnished details with regard to the source of investment and hence the unexplained investment chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
Ardent Ventures LLP Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29442 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
It is a case of simple clerical error and there is no case of contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.
Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29441 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and PCIT erred in revising the assessment order.
Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29440 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 270A
-
Section 50 inapplicable on sale of building from discontinued business which was held by the Assessee as investments.
Goverdhan Prasad Singhal Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29439 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Jurisdictional error is distinguishable from an error of law/fact within the jurisdiction and the latter is rectifiable within the statutory framework.
GIAN Castings Private Limited Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29432 (SC)
-
Even if the interest income is connected with the Assessee’s PE, it can only be brought to tax in India when the it is directly or indirectly attributable to the PE.
Marubeni Corporation, Japan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29425 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The apprehension of coercive measures being employed need to be real and like so that the principle of 'presence of an advocate, at visible, but not audible distance' be applied.
Satyendar Kumar Jain Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29424 (HC-DELHI)
-
Since the loan is repaid by the Assessee in AY 2013-14, therefore addition u/s 68 is being deleted and interest paid is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii).
Talisman Securities Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29423 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 133(6)
-
Under section 244A, interest provided for under the statute can only be claimed by the assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest is payable.
MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29422 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 244A
-
NFAC was not justified in sustaining the addition where, on basis of facts it was demonstrated that assessee had substantial cash sales throughout the year, and the cash sales leading to cash deposit was not just close to the demonetisation period.
Lateef Abdul Mohd. Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29421 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 69A
-
Prosecution under Section 276(B) shall not normally be proposed when the amount involved and the period of default is not substantial.
Dev Multicom Private Ltd Vs The State of Jharkhand
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29420 (HC-JHARKHAND)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.