-
There are no categorical findings that the activities of GIDC are not genuine or are not in accordance with the objects of the trust or the institution. Merely because, by reference to the amended provisions in Section 2(15), it may be possible to contend that the activities of GIDC are covered under the proviso, that, by itself, does not render the activities of GIDC as non-genuine activities so as to entitle the CIT to exercise powers under Section 12AA(3) of the said Act.
GOA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI GOA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20994 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82040&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Commissioner (Appeals) basically directed the AO to revisit the issue of disallowance but did not specifically interfere with or set aside the endorsement relating to the issuance of notice under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. From the tenor of the Order dated 16.11.2000, it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not wish to interfere with the endorsement at the stage of disposal of the appeal as the endorsement would undoubtedly lose its efficacy, in case, upon remand, the AO were to revoke the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- thereby reducing the returned income to that which was originally declared by the appellant at the time of filing of the initial returns for the Assessment Year 1997-1998.
GANGADHAR NARSINGAS AGRAWAL (HUF) , VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 1, MARGAO, GOA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20993 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82041&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Government of India demonetized ₹ 500 and ₹ 1000 notes on 08.11.2016. Between 01.11.2016 and 08.11.2016, the petitioner had collected a sum of ₹ 57,85,655/-which is also does not appear to be usual as compared to collections made during the November 2015. Out of the total collection of ₹ 57,85,655/-and a closing cash of ₹ 38,72,374/- as on 31.10.2016, the petitioner deposited an amount of ₹ 26,77,716/- which is also not in variance with the cash deposits made by the petitioner during the preceding financial year.
SALEM SREE RAMAVILAS CHIT COMPANY, PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, NO. 3, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20992 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82042&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a well settled principle of law that an assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, is not entitled to claim deduction until the liability for which deduction is claimed has accrued. The Act makes a distinction between actual liability in praesentia. The pay revision of employees of the appellant, a PSU is due every ten years with the expiry of one wage settlement or agreement. Invariably, there is a time lag between expiry of a wage revision and negotiation of a fresh wage revision.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12 NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20991 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82044&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The proviso to Section 43B provides that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by assessee on or before due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred. The crucial words in the proviso to Section 43B are in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred.
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20990 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82045&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The credit of Excise Duty earned by the appellant under MODVAT scheme as per Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess.
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20989 (SC) · Section 43B
-
Assessee's review petition is dismissed finding no substance in the submissions in the petition.
NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20988 (SC) · Section 68
-
Though, assessee was not required to prove source of the source, nonetheless, Tribunal took the view that Assessing Officer had made inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata and collected all the materials which proved source of the source.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Vs M/s. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20987 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
Remedies by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies exercised under the plenary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on the superior courts. The Constitution does not prescribe any limitation period for invoking writ jurisdiction.
KISHORE JAGJIVANDAS TANNA Vs JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20986 (SC)
-
In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.
Shri.R.Rajinikanth Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20985 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The provision made by the Assessee for 'Site Restoration cost' under the contractual obligations, made on scientific basis was clearly an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.
Vedanta Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20984 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 37
-
AO failed to point out any new tangible material to reopen the assessment u/s 147, thus the reassessment proceedings in the assessee's case is not valid.
Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20983 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
If land is purchased in director's name but is recorded in company's financials, it will not be considered as deemed dividend.
Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20982 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
If the purchase of a new house was made out of sale consideration on transfer of capital asset, then the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F.
Smt.Pinky Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20981 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Assessee could not substantiate before us as to how the AO made enquiries on this issue before concluding the assessment, except by pointing out that all facts were laid before the AO and it can be presumed that he had taken note of this aspect while concluding the assessment. The fact that the AO himself initiated proceedings u/s.154 of the Act to rectify error apparent on record on the aspect of having allowed service tax input written off as a deduction goes to show that he had while completing the Assessment not enquired or was not conscious of the merits of the claim for deduction of the aforesaid sum while computing income.
M/S. METRIC STREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20980 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has not recorded any specific adverse findings on perusal of the reconciliation statement except in respect of two vehicles, where she has relied on the findings of the AO in the remand report, and held that vehicles are not found registered and prima facie, the entries are fictitious in nature. Basis non-verification of two entries out of total 264 entries examined by the Assessing officer which represent less than 1% of the sample size, it would be factually incorrect to hold that the assessee has failed to substantiate whole of his claim of commission expenditure.
SHRI MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20979 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81747&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the payment of interest made by AT&S India to AT&S Austria on the one hand and the receipt of interest by AT&S Austria from AT&S India on the other hand have taken place under the same agreement i.e. Loan Agreement and Distribution Agreement. In this scenario, if the arm’s length interest rate is determined by the DRP at LIBOR plus 450 basis points in the hands of AT&S Austria, then the international transactions under consideration would never be at arm’s length in the hands of AT&S India.
AT & S AUSTRIA TECHNOLOGIE & SYSTEMTECHNIK AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-11 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20978 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81752&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of the ratio held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited admit the additional legal ground for adjudication. For levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O needs to primarily issue notice u/s 274 of the Act so for initiating proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O has to first pass through the hurdle of Section 274.
SHRI ASHOK BHATIA VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20977 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81756&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Before recovery in respect of the dues from a private company can be initiated against the directors, to make them jointly and severally liable for such dues, it is necessary for the Revenue to establish that such recovery cannot be made against the company and then alone it can reach to the directors who were responsible for the conduct of the business during the previous year in relation to which liability exists.
ASHITA NILESH PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20976 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82032&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. has answered the two questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the said decision, this Court vide affirming the similar findings returned by the Tribunal held that amount retained by a bank / credit card agency out of the sale consideration of tickets booked through credit cards is not covered under the definition of 'commission' or 'brokerage' given in explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and in such circumstances, assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H in respect of this amount.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 VERSUS M/S. AIR INDIA CHARTERS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20975 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82037&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.