-
There is no dispute with regard to the genesis of the case, particularly, as to the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, after having the same carved out from the erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also a fact conceded that there has to be only one Bar Council for the entire State as per the scheme of the Advocates Act and that the Bar Council of the undivided State was granted exemption in terms of Section 10(23A) of the Act of 1961.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C.G.), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS STATE BAR COUNCIL OF CHHATTISGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21074 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82214&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Process which the assessee had undertaken satisfies the test of manufacture to qualify for relief under Section 10B. Apart from cleaning and grading, the assessee had taken further processing, that what is purchased as raw material and what is exported as a product for export are totally different items. The process that the assessee had undertaken clearly points out the irreversible nature of the final end product from a raw material purchased.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD XIII (2), CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S DECO DE TREND
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21073 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82216&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the plain reading of the provisions of Section 68 of the IT Act, it does appear that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of Account maintained for any previous year and there is no proper explanation for such credit, the sum so credited can be charged to the income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the credits for the financial year 2006-07.
SHRI IVAN SINGH VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , GOA, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21072 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82218&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The respondent had sent a letter (Ex.PW-2/1) dated 12.09.2009, requesting for copies of the seized material. The noting on the said material indicates that the respondent was asked to pay a sum of ₹500/- to the PRO Income Tax Department, CR Building, New Delhi. Admittedly, the respondent had paid the said amount and communicated the same by a letter dated 18.08.2009 (Ex.PW-2/2).
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT) VERSUS V.K. GUPTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21071 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82219&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issuance of the LOC (Look Out Circular) was a serious matter as it contained full particulars of an individual which were sent throughout the world. In view the above said facts and circumstances, there is no justification in keeping the present LOC alive. The same is, therefore, directed to be recalled by the issuing authority.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21070 (HC-DELHI)
-
Merely by mentioning in the ledger account, it was Inter Corporate Deposit, the nature and colour of transaction would not changed to Inter Corporate Deposit, as it continues to be loan/advances. Hence required to be taxed for the purposes of deemed dividend.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhariya Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21069 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
S. 143(3): While E-Assessment without human interaction is laudable, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. Assessment proceeding under the changed scenario would require proper determination of facts by proper exchange and flow of correspondence between the assessee and the AO. The AO should at least call for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the assessee was unusual. Also, since the assessment proceedings no longer involve human interaction and is based on records alone, the assessment proceeding should have commenced much earlier so that before passing assessment order, the AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the assessee.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21068 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 143(3)
-
It is true that the assessee has claimed forex loss as revenue expenditure. It is equally true that once the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same, the assessee did not agitate the matter before the first appellant authority which is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 35, New Delhi dated 04.10.2017 wherein we can find grounds relating to foreign exchange loss of ₹ 21.22 crores was never pressed by the assessee and the same were dismissed.
M/S GLOBAL AUTO PARTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE – 12 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21067 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81950&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation to section 80IA(4) makes it clear that infrastructure facility means a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewage system or solid waste management system. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the assessee shall be entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) with respect to operating and maintaining of the water treatment system / water supply project. It is also clear that the assessee is not a developer but only operating and maintaining the water treatment system / water supply project.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17 (2), HYDERABAD. VERSUS M/S. WATERLIFE INDIA PVT. LTD. (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21066 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The requirement of supply of reasons u/s 148 of the Act when the assessee has specifically requested for the same after complying with the notice u/s 148 is sine qua non and goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the AO. In our opinion, the assessment framed without supplying reasons recorded u/s 148 deprives the assessee from filing the objections to the said reopening.
BABULAL H. JAIN VERSUS ITO-19 (1) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21065 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81955&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has assumed valid jurisdiction in this case by issue of proper notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act within the time contemplated by law. The original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act has not been treated as non est and the revised return is only for the purpose of certain errors and mistakes in the original return. In such circumstances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21064 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere disclosure of the identity of the investor in the return of income and the audited financial statements of the assessee as the source of share application money received, is not sufficient to constitute disclosure under the proviso to section 147.
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21063 (HC-DELHI)
-
Electronic assessment proceedings, though laudable, can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and statement of accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21062 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 69A
-
In the absence of any incriminating document found during the search proceedings at M/s DhanjiMama Group suggesting undisclosed income, it is transpired that the assessee has admitted the impugned income in his hands voluntarily in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act.
SHRI CHANDRESH ROSHANLAL JAIN VERSUS A.C.I.T., PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21061 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81927&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that the assessee had received the sum of ₹ 2 Crores as compensation for wrongful possession of the erstwhile tenant in the property belonging to the assessee, though the same had been characterized by the revenue as arrears of rent taxable u/s.25B r.w.s. 25AA of the Act.
M/S. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (3) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21060 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81928&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to DVO in the present case is invalid because as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinemas Vs. CIT rejection of books of accounts is a pre-condition for making a reference to DVO and there was admittedly no such rejection of books of accounts. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law on the issue that the reference to DVO in the present case is illegal and any addition made on the basis of such report cannot be sustained.
M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- (1), KALABURAGI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21059 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81933&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no PE of the Assessee in India during the relevant previous year, the question that would now require consideration is with regard to taxability of the FTS. Considering the fats of the case, as per Article 13(2) of the India-UK DTAA, FTS income of non-resident is taxable @ 15% on gross receipts. Whereas as per section 115A of the Act, FTS is taxable @ 20% on gross receipts. The provisions of the India-UK DTAA is more beneficial, the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act.
ACIT (IT) , CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD., C/O MR. SUBRATA MITRA, GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD., KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21058 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes it obligatory for the employer before paying him his wages to deduct the employee's contribution along with the employer's own contribution as fixed by Government. The employer is further obliged to pay the same within fifteen days of the close of every month pay i.e. such contribution and administrative charges.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21057 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82190&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner is not an employee of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited as stated by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents. It is also not the case that the petitioner is not joining the investigation or that he has not co-operated during the investigation, rather according to the respondents he has even made some admissions during the course of the investigation and recording of his statements.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21056 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82191&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee would like to take benefit of the new Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme introduced two-three days back and therefore he has no objection if this miscellaneous application is allowed.
Ambrish Chandra Sharma HUF Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21055 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.