-
There is no dispute on the fact that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee changed the accounting method from project completion to percentage method. It was the result of change of method that certain indirect expenses claimed could not be allowed. The account books of the assessee were found to be duly audited and prepared in accordance with accepted accounting standard.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VERSUS M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21114 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82450&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely supplying components of machinery may not be of any use for the buyer until all those parts are assembled and commissioned.
Voith Paper GmbH Vs DDIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21113 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The main function of Mandamus is to compel action, It neither creates nor confers power to act. It only commands the exercise of power already existing when it is the duty of the person or authority proceeded against to act.
Dhan Prakash Budhraja Vs Commissioner Income Tax Investigation Lko. & Others
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21112 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
S. 11/ 12AA: The only requirement for granting registration is that the objects of the society should be charitable in nature and activities are genuine (i) A trust may be of a public charitable nature even if the control of the trust property is not vested in the public but is retained by the settlors, (ii) Registration u/s 12A cannot be declined on the ground that the Trust Deed does not contain "dissolution clause". This is totally irrelevant & beyond the scope of enquiry contemplated u/s 12A. of the Act, (iii) Registration cannot be refused for non furnishing of registration with the Registrar of Societies. Registration with the Registrar of Societies is not a precondition for granting registration u/s 12A.
Shri Dhar Sabha Vaishno Devi vs. CIT(E)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21111 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Sections 11, 12AA
-
S. 68 Bogus Cash Credits: The expression “any previous year” does not mean all previous years but the previous year in relation to the assessment year concerned. If the cash credits are credited in the FY 2006-07, it cannot be brought to tax in a later AY.
Ivan Singh vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21110 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in LG Cables shows that the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with each of the issues raised by the AO in the present case. The existence of PE would not constitute sufficient business connection.
DDIT, CIRCLE-3 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. VERSUS MITSUI & CO. LTD. (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21109 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82053&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Coming to the facts of the present case, when the fats are not at variance as the assessee has shown the unsold unit as opening stock. The AO was not justified in bringing the unsold flat to bring it under income from house property. The submission of the ld DR that the legislature has already brought the amendment in section 23(5) to bring the unsold unit after a vacancy period of one year is not acceptable to us as the said amendment was brought by Finance Act, 2017 and is applicable from 01.04.2018, thus, the said amendment is not applicable for the year under consideration.
M/S KIRAN PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS VERSUS DY. CIT, CENT. CIR. 5 (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21108 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82055&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision of 269T and 269SS has been enacted in order to prevent the increase in black money and to stop tax evasion. The intention of the legislature was not to cover the bonafide and genuine transaction wherein the AO himself was satisfied and no tax evasion/use of the black money was involved. A genuine transaction made in an emergency, does not attract penalty u/s 271E.
MOHANLAL SOBHAGMAL, C/O- M/S B.M. VYAS & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS J.C.I.T., RANGE-2, AJMER.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21107 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82059&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, new facts, material or information have come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer by way of the report of DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) with regards to the doubtful source of the investments made into the petitioner companies. At the time of original assessment, the AO was not aware of or in possession of information which could have indicated that the introduction of share capital from outside India has been routed through a doubtful entity.
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21106 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82439&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
To claim the benefit of Section 10B an assessee is required to file the returns by the due date prescribed u/s 139. In this case, the last date for filing the return fell on 30.9.2008 and 30.9.2009 respectively. However, the returns were filed by the petitioner belatedly on 7.1.2009 and 20.11.2009. By filing the returns belatedly, the petitioner did not gain anything. On the contrary, the petitioner risked losing the benefit of deduction under Section 10 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/S BEACH MINERALS COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21105 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82442&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of the first respondent, it has observed that the wife of the first respondent has admitted that she has amassed the wealth by selling cycle rims and leather products without any bill and out of money amassed by her, she had persuaded her husband to deposit the same in various banks. She has also admitted that the recovered seized assets belong to her. Whether she has been prosecuted for the above non-disclosure or not is not brought before this Court.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, THE INCOME – TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI VERSUS K. INBASAGARAN, M/S. SILVER SHOES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21104 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82444&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Rules are enacted to facilitate the assessee and the same should not be used as a tool and techniques to deprive the assesses from their right of hearing.
Sriram Kapur Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21103 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Where an assessee converts his capital assets into stock-in-trade and starts dealing with them, the taxable profit on the sale must be determined by deducting on sale proceeds and the market value at the time of their conversion into stock-in-trade. The aforesaid principle has neither been taken into account by the AO as well as by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal.
SMT. DEEPA S. PAI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21102 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82380&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A conjoint reading of provision contained in Section 36(1)(viia) and explanatory note dated 30.06.1982 it is evident that deduction provided in Section 36(1)(viia) shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt therein in computing the income. The condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is that a provision for bad and doubtful debt should be made in the accounts of the assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III VERSUS M/S. SYNDICATE BANK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21101 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82381&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Pertinently in the statement of facts filed with the memorandum of appeal in form No. 35 before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has specifically stated that it has carried out its transactions in derivatives in future and option segments of National Stock Exchange. From the impugned order if learned Commissioner (Appeals) it is patent obvious that he has completely overlooked the aforesaid factual position while observing that the assessee has entered into over the counter derivative transaction and not in any recognized stock exchanges, while treating it as speculative loss u/s. 43(5) of the Act.
DARASHAW & COMPANY PVT., LTD VERSUS DY. CIT, RANGE 4 (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21100 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82015&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Legal issue raised by the Assessee has been addressed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing statements and fee prescribed under s.234E could be levied even in the absence of a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fee.
BHIKHABHAI HIRABHAI PATEL VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21099 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82019&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case, assessee has purchased shares of the three companies at a particular price and sold them at a lower price, which resulted in short-term capital loss. The list of the shares transacted by the assessee has been reproduced above. According to the assessee purchase and sale of the shares have been made on recognized stock exchange through registered brokers and payments have been made and received by way of bank account.
SANJAY KAUL VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 24 (4), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21098 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82017&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has taken legal actions, filed FIR and terminated the guilty employees. These facts on record were accepted by the DR. DR could not controvert the facts stated by the Ld. AR of the assessee. DR further could not bring on record any material/ evidence/ case laws which could controvert/raise any doubt regarding the facts already on record. It is therefore, undisputed fact that there was fraud and embezzlement for which the assessee suffered loss of ₹ 52,30,000/-.
THE WASHIM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21097 (ITAT-NAGPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82026&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 Reopening for Bogus Share Capital u/s 68: The parent co does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries. The funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the assessee which is required to be taxed in its hands. At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of s. 68 of the Act (All imp verdicts referred)
Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21096 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
-
S. 254(2): The Writ Petition to challenge the ITAT's order dismissing the MA does not appear to be bonafide. In the garb of the MA, the Petitioner sought review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the Petitioner
Cavalier Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21095 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.