-
S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20894 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 226(3)
-
(i) 56(2)(vii)(b): The amendment w.e.f AY 2014-15 will not apply to a purchase transaction of immovable property for which full consideration is paid pre the amendment. Mere registration at a later date will not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The Revenue is debarred to cover the transaction where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged (ii) Interest u/s 234A & 234B is chargeable with reference to the returned income and not the assessed income
Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20893 (ITAT-RANCHI) · Sections 234A, 234B
-
S. 83 CGST Act: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the power is not to be routinely exercised. S. 83 confers power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard Govt revenue but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power u/s 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power. If proceedings are launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person cannot be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued u/s 70 to him.
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20892 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It cannot be stated that the decision of the Tribunal is an elaborate one but on the reading of the decision it is seen that the reference is made to all the relevant facts which are necessary to make distinction between a Income from Business and the Income from House Property.
City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20891 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Sec.43A are applicable when assets are acquired from outside India, thus AO's invocation of Sec.43A is rejected.
Hueco Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20890 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43A
-
Since participation fees for attending seminar is not taxable in India, the question of TDS on aforesaid payment does not arise. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(I) is deleted.
Roche Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20889 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 195
-
The excess expenditure over income can be carried forward for setting off against income of subsequent years.
Improvement Trust Fatehabad Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20888 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
-
Assessee has demonstrated from the records that all the requisite details were submitted to the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee in commodity trading activity. In our view, merely because the brokers had not appeared in response to the summons sent by the Assessing Officer that itself cannot be the sole ground to reject the entire evidence produced by the assessee.
M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VERSUS M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20887 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81458&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penal provisions must be strictly construed and only on satisfaction of conditions specified therein, the penalty can be levied. In the instant case, the assessee has not been found to be recipient of salary income during the course of search. The assessee is an individual deriving salary and interest income and not required to maintain books of accounts.
SH. YASH BHATIA VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20886 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81460&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Value of the assets taken over by the company should be considered as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains under the Act. In this case, the full value of consideration is ₹ 2,70,69,200/-. This is also, the cost of acquisition of assets. As the cost of acquisition and the full value of consideration received on sale are the same figure, no capital gains has accrued or was received by the assessee.
RAVI JALAN VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20885 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81462&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is because the time permitted under the statute for selecting the case under scrutiny was up to 30 September 2012 but there was no notice issued for the scrutiny assessment. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order in the case of Krishna Kumar Singhania Vs. DCIT wherein unless there was no any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to concluded year 2009-10.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4) AHMEDABAD VERSUS INDIA RETAI L PRODUCT PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20884 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81463&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing but the assessee has not produced any evidences before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Assessing Officer to corroborate those statements that the assessee company was engaged in providing only accommodation entries. The assessee-company has not provided any affidavits from the beneficiary companies to support its claim of being engaged in providing accommodation entries.
ITO, WARD-14 (4), NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. KULDEEP TEXTILES (P.) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20883 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the applicant is directed to abide by the provisions of Sec.139AA and subsequently the petition challenging the validity of Aadhar Act succeeds, it would not be possible to turn the clock back as the applicant would be required to provide all the necessary information for obtaining an Aadhaar card and the claim of privacy of the applicant would be lost for all times to come.
Bandish Saurabh Soparkar Vs Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20882 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Even though the assessee is an eligible assessee, there is no variation to the international transactions. Therefore, there cannot be any prejudice to the interests of the assesse, passing of the draft assessment order itself is not warranted
Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20881 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The action of the JCIT under s.153D of the Act is to be regarded as perfunctory and mechanical in subversion of the spirit of Section 153D of the Act. Such symbolic approval is unfounded in law. As a corollary, in the absence of any valid approval under s.153D of the Act, the respective assessment orders giving cause of action in the form of captioned appeals requires to be quashed on this score also.
M/S. RAJAT MINERALS PVT. LTD. C/O SRI S.K. PODDAR, M/S. K.D.S. CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1, RANCHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20880 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81438&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act, AO has not recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 14A(2) that the working given by the assessee is not correct. It is incumbent upon the AO to record satisfaction as to the working given by the assessee that no expenses have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A is not sustainable, hence ordered to be deleted.
M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20879 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There has been only a change in name of the entity and besides that, there is no change in the corporate identity of the assessee company. It is therefore not a case where the assessee company ceases to exist and/or amalgamated with any other existing/new entity. Therefore, it is not a case where the notice u/s 148 has been issued and assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 147 has been completed in the name of non- existent entity.
M/S SHREE SILICA PRODUCT PVT. LTD. (NOW M/S RAJSHREE ALLOYS INDIA LTD.) (FORMERLY BADAYA ISPAT LTD.) VERSUS ITO, WARD-4 (1), JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20878 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81435&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that survey action u/s.133A was carried out at the office premises of Anupam Group wherein during the course seven small pocket diaries were recovered from the premises. And the same were confronted by recording statement of u/s.132(4) wherein it was admitted that these represents net profit from on money receipts or different purchases of the group which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts and was net earnings after all expenses.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT. VERSUS ANUPAM ORGANISER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20877 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81434&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As long as the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accrued to the assessee on the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset) is not in excess of five percent, then such difference is to be ignored and the profits and gains on transfer of the asset has to be worked out on the basis of the actual consideration received or accruing to the assessee.
WELFARE PROPERTIES P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT-13 (3) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20876 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81432&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even if the purchases are found to be bogus, however, the entire purchases cannot be added if the sales are not doubted or disputed. In such circumstances, the addition can be made by applying the gross profit rate of normal purchases. Thus, in our considered opinion, the decision of the Assessing Officer in making addition applying the profit rate is in consonance with various judicial precedents available on the issue.
NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGINEERING CO. P. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE–5, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20875 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.