-
Being govt. employee, the assessee is not permitted to enter in chit fund.
KISHAN KOTHWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26871 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90574&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the CBDT Circular No. 1/2005 was in the context of section 10B, the ratio of the circular equally applies to Section 10A.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) VERSUS ZENTEST LABS
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26870 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90575&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the stamp duty valuation is less than the sale consideration under the sale deed and hence no addition u/s 50C is required to be made as per proviso to Section 50C of the Act.
DHARMENDRA B. PATEL VERSUS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (3) , SURAT.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26869 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The addition made by revenue authorities in the given case is without any basis and keeping aside the sound principles of tax jurisprudence, the same cannot be held as sustainable.
SRI BUDHUVIR EDUCATIONAL TRUST VERSUS DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, DIST-SUNDARGARH
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26868 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90579&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy - The mixed question of fact and law is to be decided with reference to the original documents and evidences by the appellate authority.
M/S. STAR AVIATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE – VI (4) , CHENNAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26808 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the Income Tax Act does not anywhere contemplate issuance of a show cause notice prior to finalisation of scrutiny assessments, as a matter of procedure and good office, the Assessing Authority is expected to crystalise the issues arising from the return of income filed by an assessee, the questionnaires issued under Section 142(1) and notices under Section 143(2) and responses thereto, issue a show cause notice setting out the issues, solicit the response of the assessee and pass orders only thereafter, after hearing the assessee concerned.
ESHAKTI. COM PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2 (1) , CHENNAI, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26807 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85024&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 245 Adjustment of Refund: The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act. It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter. Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant (All imp judgements on s. 245 referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26540 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 245
-
Article 226/ s. 147: (i) A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. (ii) A s. 148 notice & s. 147 reassessment order passed against an amalgamated (non-existing) company is without jurisdiction. The defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B (All imp judgements referred)
Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26539 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 56(2) (viib): The object of s. 56(2)(viib) is to tax excessive share premium received unjustifiably by private companies on issue of shares without carrying underlying value. However, shares issued to shareholders of an amalgamating company in terms of a scheme of amalgamation does not fall within the sweep of the deeming provisions of s. 56(2) (viib). The so-called excess value of assets vested on amalgamation cannot be notionally termed as premium over the face value for the purposes of the deeming provision (AS-14 issued by the ICAI & CBDT Circular No 3/2012 dated 12-6-2012 referred)
DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26538 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56(2) (viib)
-
The DTVSV Act, 2020 is an Act to provide for resolution of disputed tax and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The emphasis is on disputed tax and not on disputed income. From a plain reading of the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and the Rules set out above, it emerges that the Designated Authority would have to issue Form 3 as referred to in section 5(1) specifying the amount payable in accordance with section 3 of the DTVSV Act. In the case of the declarant who is an eligible appellant not falling under section 4(6) nor within the exceptions in section 9 of the DTVSV Act, 2020, which fact appears to be undisputed
Sadruddin Tejani vs. ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26531 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(2A) Stay by ITAT: Since the object of the 3rd proviso to s. 254(2A) is the automatic vacation of a stay that has been granted on the completion of 365 days, whether or not the assessee is responsible for the delay caused in hearing the appeal, such object being itself discriminatory, is liable to be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Also, the said proviso would result in the automatic vacation of a stay upon the expiry of 365 days even if the Appellate Tribunal could not take up the appeal in time for no fault of the assessee. Further, vacation of stay in favour of the revenue would ensue even if the revenue is itself responsible for the delay in hearing the appeal. In this sense, the said proviso is also manifestly arbitrary being a provision which is capricious, irrational and disproportionate so far as the assessee is concerned. Consequently, the third proviso to s. 254(2A) will now be read without the word “even” and the words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal”. Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.
DCIT vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26506 (SC) · Section 254(2A)
-
The payment received by the assessee for rendering services relating to various projects would not qualify as royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore DTAA.
Atos Information Technology Singapore Pte Ltd Vs Dy.CIT (International Taxation)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26476 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
After the amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) w.e.f. 01.04.2016, the proviso can be attracted to the case of expansion of business which is not applicable to the impugned AY 2010-11.
Coffeeday Global Ltd Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26471 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
No taxing event has taken place within the territories of India and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee.
Puma Sports India P. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26467 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 195
-
Mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.
Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26466 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 11/ Form No.10B: Under Circular No.2 / 2020 dated 03.01.2020, the CBDT has delegated the power to the CIT to admit belated applications in filing Form No.10B for AY 2018-19 and onwards for a period of only upto 365 days. There is no error or infirmity in this stand. Fixing a period of one year’s delay i.e., 365 days of delay for condonation of delay in filing Form No.10B for AY 2018-19 and onwards cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. However, there is also nothing in s. 119(2)(b) preventing or precluding the CBDT from passing a special order in any given case from condoning the delay in filing Form No.10B beyond 365 days despite passing a general order. The Petitioner should approach the CBDT which will deal with the claim on merit and in accordance with law
Little Angels Education Society vs. UOI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26465 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 11
-
Vivad se Vishwas Act: The CBDT's answer to question No.73 that the ineligibility u/s 9(a)(ii) relates to an assessment year and if for that assessment year a prosecution has been instituted, then the taxpayer would not be eligible to file declaration for the said assessment year even on issues not relating to prosecution would not only be illogical and irrational but would be in complete deviation from section 9(a)(ii). On a literal or purposive interpretation, the only exclusion visualized under the said provision is pendency of a prosecution in respect of tax arrear relatable to an assessment year as on the date of filing of declaration and not pendency of a prosecution in respect of an assessment year on any issue. To hold that an assessee would not be eligible to file a declaration because there is a pending prosecution for the assessment year in question on an issue unrelated to tax arrear would defeat the very purport and object of the Vivad se Vishwas Act
Macrotech Developers Limited vs. PCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26464 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Income of the payee is not taxable in India and assessee has already filed the relevant information u/s 201(1) of the Act which shows that the assessee cannot be regarded as assessee in default.
Celltick Mobile Media (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT -9(2)(1)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26457 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
Determination of tax liability in a challenge to an order under Section 241A would set at naught the entire statutory scheme of assessment and appeals.
GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26456 (HC-DELHI) · Section 241A
-
With the introduction of Board for Advance Rulings in the Finance Bill, 2021, no benefit would accrue in appointing a senior member as officiating Vice Chairman.
Internet Fund II Pte. Ltd Vs THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26449 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.