-
S. 10(38) Bogus LTCG from Penny Stock: The analysis of balance sheet & P&L account of the Co shows that astronomical increase in share price which led to returns of 491% for assesee was completely unjustified. The EPS & other financials parameters cannot justify price at which assessee claims to have sold shares to obtain Long Terms Capital Gains. It is not explained as to why anyone would purchase said shares at such high price
Suman Poddar vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20196 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
A concession given by Counsel, if it is a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules, is not binding on the litigant for the reason that there cannot be any estoppel against law (see also Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
Directorate of Elementary Education vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20195 (SC)
-
A concession given by Counsel, if it is a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules, is not binding on the litigant for the reason that there cannot be any estoppel against law (see also Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
Directorate of Elementary Education vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20194 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
S. 143(3): If the case is selected for limited scrutiny of a specific issue, the AO has no jurisdiction to make additions or disallowances on other issues.
Vijay Kumar vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20193 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 143(3)
-
The words 'as it thinks fit' used under Section 254(1) is of the widest amplitude.
Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh Lucknow Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons & Infra.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20192 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 12AA
-
The amount of accumulated profit needs to be worked out on the date of such payment/advancement of loan.
Asian Business Connection Private Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20189 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
The assessee would be afforded adequate opportunity to explain his case before passing an order on objective appraisal of the evidence available.
Epson India Private Limited Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20176 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 148
-
There is no merit in the present appeal and no question arises for consideration. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpact Infrastructure (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20175 (HC-DELHI)
-
Merely because in the later year, the Assessing Officer takes a different view on the basis of similar material, which may have been collected during such process, would not permit him to reopen the assessment.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL Vs PRECILION HOLDINGS LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20174 (SC)
-
While passing the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act, the assessing officer has categorically stated that this being second default of concealment of particulars of same type of income therefore he was satisfied to impose maximum penalty @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Regarding contention of the assessee that assessing officer has failed to specify charge whether penalty is being imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
KISHORBHAI D IYAVA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2, NADIAD AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20145 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77927&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The first transaction pertaining to cash received by the assessee from his father we are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that the assessee gave this amount to his father after withdrawing the same from his bank account towards purchase of land and due to cancellation of land deal, it was returned to the assessee by his father and same was deposited by the assessee to his bank account. As the land deal was under process and for acquisition of land and the intention of the assessee was to contribute and support his family.
GOURANG CHANDRA NAYAK VERSUS JCIT, RANGE-3, BHUBANESWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20144 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no bar in granting registration to trust, even if the trust has both charitable as well as religious objects no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ALPHA INDIA FOUNDATION
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20143 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79976&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner within one week the reasons recorded for issuance of the impugned certificate fixing the rate of deduction of TDS at 4%. It shall be open to the petitioner to assail the said reasons in case the petitioner is aggrieved thereby.
JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENT CO LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20142 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79981&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute from the record that notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was never issued to the Assessee before initiating of proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his Order dated 13.09.2004 has given several reasons as to why the issuance of such notice was not a prerequisite for initiating of assessment proceedings under Section 158 BC.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS M/S. FOMENTO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20141 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79982&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the investor had not filed its income tax returns, it does not make the entire transactions bogus or the said investor non-existent.
M/s. Hinduja Realty Ventures Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20140 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The services were rendered in Taiwan and utilized in Taiwan and not in India. The payments made towards services rendered outside India for use by the Taiwanese contractor does not constitute FTS u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act.
Kumar Kondiba Shingare Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20139 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
BSE Card is not an asset of the nature referred under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus, depreciation on the said asset is not allowable. On perusal of the working of Client Assistance Charges, we find that it is not the cost per location, per branch which has increased, but the number of branches served by the Bank has increased, which has lead to increase in expenditure which fact the AO has ignored while passing the assessment order.
M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ICICI BROKERAGE SERVICES LIMITED) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20138 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77949&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Grounds on which approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act can be denied to an applicant are specified in Rule 11AA (5) of I.T. Rules which refers to the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of sub section 5 of section 80G of I.T. Act. Nowhere it is the case of the ld. CIT(E) that any of the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the I.T. Act are not fulfilled.
M/S JUST BE FOUNDATION TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20137 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO conducted sufficient inquiry of the impugned transaction and took one of the permissible view provided in the law and therefore Ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. We accordingly quash the order of Ld. CIT u/s 263.
DIPAL PIYUSH PALKHIWALA VERSUS ITO WARD-4 (4) , AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20136 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77954&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee in order to claim that all the expenses claimed and paid to the above parties are genuine has filed ledger account of construction material for all the three years, copy of invoices of all the parties, bank statement through which the payments has been made and the details about the contractor who carried out the work.
JATINKUMAR AMRUTLAL SHAH VERSUS ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -5 (1) AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20135 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77956&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.