-
The term possession in Sec. 53A of TOPA is a legal concept which denotes control over the land and not actual physical occupation of the land.
M/S SESHASAYEE STEELS P. LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21054 (SC) · Section 2(47)(v)
-
It is an undisputed fact that limitation for passing the assessment order, if it was not draft assessment order was 31.03.2014. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer has passed the draft assessment order and has forwarded the same to the assessee stating that if the assessee does not agree with the transfer pricing adjustment, then he can file objection before the DRP within 30 days of the said order.
NORTH SHORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-13 (3), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21053 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81905&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No order of assessment under section 153A could be passed by the A.O. below the Rank of JCIT except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order have been passed by the DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad. Thus, the A.O. is below the Rank of JCIT, therefore, before passing the order under section 153A under appeal, the A.O. shall have to obtain prior approval of the JCIT.
SHRI AJAY SHARMA, GHAZIABAD VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, GHAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21052 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81906&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory notice, upon issuance of which, the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction to frame the scrutiny assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Consequently, if such notice is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 143 viz. before the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished, it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed further with the assessment.
KUNAL STRUCTURE (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21051 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82174&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, it is not as if amounts were not paid under the JV agreement or amounts due were written off by the petitioner. The petitioner however claimed higher business loss and the depreciation loss during the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 as the amount was not paid by the developer in time as per the JV agreement dated 30.8.1986.
M/S. RAYALA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21050 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82178&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of making protective demand based on the assessment of the person who paid the amount the petitioner appears to be incorrect as assessment cannot be made subject to outcome of collateral proceedings of another person. Assessment has to be completed based on the accounts of the petitioner. It cannot be left open ended as has been done in the case of the petitioner.
CBI INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I (2), TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21049 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82183&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the procedural requirements are satisfied, whether the inference drawn is based on the relevant materials or not is a matter which may involve a fact adjudication. This is not possible at the hands of this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
HARIOM RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED, MR. SUBHASH AGRAWAL, S/O RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 (1), BILASPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21048 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82187&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Transfer Pricing: (i) If the "arms length‟ principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India (ii) If the subsidiary has subsequently entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT & the FAR analysis and overall functions remain unchanged, the "APA‟ would have a bearing on the ALP of the earlier years
Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Though the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not the entire amount (Bholanath Polyfab 355 ITR 290 (Guj) followed, Kaveri Rice Mills 157 Taxman 376 (All) & La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) referred)
PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21046 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
U/s 43B(a), deduction is allowed on “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee.” The scheme of s. 43B is to allow deduction when the sum is actually paid. (i) The credit of Excise Duty earned under MODVAT scheme is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess. It is merely the incident of Excise Duty that has shifted from the manufacturer to the purchaser and not the liability to the same. Consequently, the unutilised credit under MODVAT scheme does not qualify for deduction u/s 43B. (ii) The sales tax paid by the appellant was debited to a separate account titled ‘Sales Tax recoverable account’ and is liable for disallowance u/s 43B.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21045 (SC) · Section 43B(a)
-
The contention of the assessee's AR seems to hold much water in as much as the provision of section 5 of the Act does not provide any room for bringing to tax any income by way of notional income. On the matter of debit balance of one of the partners, find that the impugned debit balance is not a new finding by the AO, rather it has been carried forward from the past several years and there were no additions made on this count by the AO in those years.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA VERSUS INDIA HOUSING
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21044 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81871&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee did not furnish the source of fund available with her as she is not maintaining regular books of account. The ld CIT(A) also noted that her return of income was only ₹ 251500/- and therefore, after meeting the household expenses, she could not have saved above sum available with her. Thus, the creditworthiness of the above loan was not proved.
RELIANCE MEDICO PVT. LTD VERSUS ITO, WARD-3 (3), SAHARANPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21043 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81874&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act makes it amply clear that any mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act may be rectified at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed or at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be.
JAY KUMAR SINGH VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BHOPAL AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21042 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82162&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner did mention about the illness of his wife, about hospitalization of his wife and in all fairness, the delay should have been condoned. It is not a case of evasion of income, it is not a case where no income tax return was filed, it is only a case, in which, Form No.V was not forwarded to the CPC, Banglore in the prescribed time. The return for assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 02.12.2015 and Form No.V was received by the CPC, Banglore on 01.03.2017.
SHRI LADDULAL SHARMA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, INCOME
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21041 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82163&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from ₹ 24,18,06,385.00 to ₹ 65,65,30,470.00 but having found that the purchases corresponded to sales which were reflected in the returns of the assessee in sales tax proceedings and in addition, were also recorded in the books of accounts with payments made through account payee cheques, the purchases were accepted by the two appellate authorities and following judicial dictum decided to add the profit percentage on such purchases to the income of the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, MUMBAI VERSUS RISHABHDEV TACHNOCABLE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21040 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82169&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to cancel the registration of a Trust u/s.12AA(3), the competent authority must be satisfied that the activities of the Trust are not genuine or that the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust and such satisfaction must be recorded as a matter of fact on the basis of specific materials on record.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21039 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 2(15), 12AA
-
No income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any Award or enhancement received u/s. 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
MADAPARABIL VARKEY VARGHESE Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21038 (HC-KERALA) · Section 194LA
-
Even though the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and has submitted its return of income under the provision of section 44AD, in terms of provision of sections 184 and 185 of the Act, interest and salary to partners has to be allowed.
Singh Construction Company Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21037 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 44AD
-
The AO can widen the scope of scrutiny even when the case is selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, after seeking prior approval of PCIT.
Urban Improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21036 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 43CA
-
In absence of knowledge made available as per Article 12(4) of India-Netherlands DTAA, payment made to company cannot be considered as fees for technical services.
Alstom India T& D India Limited Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21035 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.