-
Sec 24(b) (providing for interest deduction) and Sec. 48 (providing for computation of capital gains) are covered under different heads and neither of the sections excludes operation of the other.
Ashok Kumar Shahi Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20365 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since the legislature has itself amended Section 40(a) (ia) vide the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 restricting a disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. Therefore AO is directed to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only.
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20364 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
In view of above categorical facts coming out of the assessment proceedings, on perusal of the deviation report and appraisal report that for the concluded assessment is no incriminating evidences were found.
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20363 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Member of the AOP i.e. HPL is entitled to 2% of guaranteed profits regardless of the fact whether AOP made profits or losses. This is only a charge against the profits of the assessee AOP but not share in profits.
Herve Pomerleau International CCCL Joint Venture Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20362 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The Assessing Officer has not properly considered the factual aspect and has suddenly jumped to the conclusion for violation of section 40 A(3). We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to go through the above details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
GLOBAL CONNECT TRAVELS P. LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD – 10 (2) NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20361 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There is no dispute regarding genuineness of the payment. In this view of the matter there is no accounting mandate that business expenditure incurred need to be allocated to the entire cost of land which is in stock of assessee to artificially increase the cost. In fact this is not sustainable as per accounting principle as the compensation paid has not been incurred for acquisition of land.
ACIT 29 (1) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. EPLUS GREEN 9
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20360 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78881&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Revenue could not, on the one hand, contend that the amount was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee and, at the same time, seek to initiate the proceedings against the assessee for alleged violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act; and that the Revenue having taken the stand that the income was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, it could not resort to the proceedings u/s. 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act.
CODE ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. CIT, CIRCLE 8 (3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20359 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78885&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute to this fact that the alleged amount is the net of gain/loss of the foreign currency received during the year from the revenue operations carried out by the assessee in the Special Economic Zone units running at Hyderabad and Pune. Therefore the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition treating the amount as part of relief eligible for exemption u/s 10AA.
ACIT-4 (1), INDORE VERSUS M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20358 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78890&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have been able to prove ingredients of Section 68. A.O. however did not make any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee.
AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND VICE VERSA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20357 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78891&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is also not disputed before us by the Revenue that the return of income in electronic form is self populted i.e. on filling in some entries, the other entries in the return are indicated by the system itself. Thus, the petitioner is unable to make a claim which according to him, he is entitled to in law.
SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (4), MUMBAI & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20356 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80306&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Period for which the person was a member of the recognised stock exchange in India immediately prior to such de- mutualisation or corporatisation shall also be included in the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd.
M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT - 4(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee is entitled to claim deduction.
Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20351 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Where during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in the name of said non-existent entity would be without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside.
Idea Cellular Ltd (as Successor of Spice Communications Ltd) Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The term Industrial Undertaking having been defined in the Act, though for a different statutory provision, can be a guiding factor to the intention of the legislature to apply that definition to statutory provision in which the said term has not been defined.
Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20349 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Assessee fails to bring on record any tangible material to substantiate he was carrying jewellery of 700gms of M/s Vikram Jewellers therefore the addition made by AO is upheld.
Vivek Rohatigi Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20348 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 69A
-
Expenses incurred for issue of bonus shares being capitalization of reserves merely resulted in reallocation of companies funds and there was no inflow of fresh funds or increase in capital employed.
Empower India Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20347 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B.
Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20346 (SC) · Section 36(1) (iii)
-
Where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority.
Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20345 (HC-DELHI)
-
No question of law arises.
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20339 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
In the present case the obligation to deduct TDS is on the assessee’s customers and the consequences of non-deduction would be faced by the assessee’s customers. Therefore, in such a case, the legal right if any is of the customer who is required to deduct tax at source.
Quick Heal Technologies Ltd Vs The Union of India & Others
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20338 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.