-
On the paper seized in search the advance given is only mentioned and it is nowhere mentioned that what was the dates of the payments and what were the mode of payments. If it is presumed that the payments mentioned on this paper was actually made/realized to this party than the same should have been mentioned on the excel sheet seized from the residence of the assessee.
D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. VERSUS SHRI SANDEEP CHHABRA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20054 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77560&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the assessee firm has not charged any interest and remuneration as per partnership deed does not prescribed so, therefore, the assessee firm cannot be compelled to charge interest or remuneration. CIT(A) was right in observing that the disallowance made by the AO on account of non-provision of interest and remuneration of cannot be disallowed under section 10AA(9).
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2) , SURAT. VERSUS KIRAN JEWELLERY, SURAT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20053 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77562&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The show cause notice in the instant case was duly issued within the period of 6 years at which time the default in deduction of TDS was both committed as well as continuing, hence assessee cannot seek immunity from the applicability of Sec. 201(1).
ITO (TDS ) Vs M/ s. Shri Rang Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20052 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 201(3)
-
Ideally the matter could have been concluded by making an appropriate direction to remand the matter back for carrying out the cash verification exercise having regard to assessee's business model. Such an act would leave those impediments unaddressed which appear to pose serious obstacles and hindrances to the nation's goal to becoming a 5 trillion dollar economy.
Smt. Asha Gandhi Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20051 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Sec.56(2)(viib) Provisions are applicable only when the shares are issues over and above the face value of such shares. In the present case the shares had been subscribed at face value and there was no premium element involved.
Edulink Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20050 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
AO had initiated penalty proceedings without referring to any charge as to for concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was levied for deliberateness of 'tax evasion', which is not at all the requirement of Sec.271(1)(c ) of the IT Act.
Google India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20049 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The findings rendered cannot be termed as prima facie as they were not mere observations the learned single Judge was not right in going to the merit while granting liberty to file an appeal. As and when such an appeal is filed, the same will have to be disposed of within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20048 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It will be open for assessees to show, by adducing the necessary facts, that they are direct exporters as well and can therefore avail deduction u/s. 80HHC (1) read with (3).
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S CARPET INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20047 (SC) · Section 80HHC
-
No hesitation in holding that the assessee is carrying out objects of general public utility, hence, fulfills the condition of charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. It is worth mentioning, after introduction of proviso to section 2(15) DIT(E) cancelled the registration granted under section 12A of the Act by holding that as per the said proviso, the assessee is engaged in commercial activity.
OTTERS CLUB VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.) WARD–2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20046 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77504&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO in the reasons recorded incorrect facts that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 9 lakhs, despite assessing officer has accepted that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- only. AO while recording the reasons has not applied mind to the material on record. Source of purchase of shares have been accepted by the assessing officer, which was also found factually incorrect. Further the deposit in the bank account per se cannot be income of the assessee.
SHRI SAURABH SAINI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (2) , GURGAON.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20045 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77509&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation offered by assessee is bonafide to take it out of clutches of the penalty proceedings as no attempt is made by assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income nor an attempt is made by assessee to conceal his income more-so there is no prejudice to the Revenue as further income-tax of ₹ 5,00,000/- was deducted at source by employer Pace u/s 192 on behalf of assessee on additional salary income of ₹ 16,63,897/- paid to assessee on 24.09.2013 for impugned ay: 2013-14 within provisions of Section 192.
MR. ANISH DHIRAJ MEHTA VRINDAVAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10 (3) (3) , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20044 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77510&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has incurred the expenditure towards construction of 169 houses for the villagers who had lost their home due to natural calamity. In order to cater to the needs of those destitute persons who had lost the roof over their head on account of natural calamity, assessee constructed the houses by expending the amount. AO and the authorities have held that it was not incurred for the purpose of business.
M/S. KANHIYALAL DUDHERIA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALLARI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20043 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The case on hand is not falling under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 159 of the Act, and in such circumstances, the proceedings pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued to a dead person cannot be continued against the legal representatives. We are not impressed by the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Revenue that the writ-applicant having participated in the proceedings cannot turn around and submit that the proceedings cannot continue as the notice was issued to a dead person.
URMILABEN ANIRUDHHASINHJI JADEJA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (1) (3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20042 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79833&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely by reason of the fact that the income tax authority has administered oath to an assessee and recorded his sworn statement during the survey proceedings under Section 133A it cannot be found that such statement has no evidentiary value at all and that it cannot be used in any manner against the assessee in any proceedings under the Act.
C.K. ABDUL AZEEZ VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CIRCLE, CALICUT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20041 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79834&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C/143(2) of the Act, it is a clear cut case of overlooking the procedure and provisions set out in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under these sections, the Assessing Officer cannot issue consolidated notices for different Assessment Years.
M/S BARNALA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., MERRUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20040 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77497&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As originally the assessee had no intention to file an appeal against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that giving effect order passed by the AO on 31.03.2017 alone is the provocation of filing the appeal before this Tribunal with the delay of 288 days against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that this does not constitute sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing the appeal before us.
M/S. KOSAMATTOM FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20039 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77498&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations as in this case.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3-MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. M.J. EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20038 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79826&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 144C/ 254: (i) Condonation of delay of 1018 days: None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned. A technical view of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay should not be taken if the legal issue has to be decided for other years (ii) A draft assessment order u/s 144C issued with a notice of demand u/s 156 and a s/ 271(1)(c) penalty notice is null and void (Eaton Fluid Power 96 TM.com 512 followed, BS Ltd 94 TM.com 346 (Hyd) distinguished)
Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20037 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 144C, 254
-
There is a power with the Central Board of Direct Taxes to condone the delay. There appears to be no justification in forcing the petitioner to file an application before Central Board of Direct Taxes. Once the power is there and it was not the petitioner, who was at fault in the matter, this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered opinion that the delay can be condoned by this Court also, and therefore, the delay in filing the application for refund of tax is hereby condoned.
COLONEL ASHWANI KUMAR RAM SINGH (RETD.) VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20036 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Expenditure is not necessarily confined to the money which has been actually paid out. It covers a liability which has accrued or which has been incurred although it may have to be discharged at a future date. However, a contingent liability which may have to be discharged in future cannot be considered as expenditure. It also covers a liability which the assessee has incurred in praesenti although it is payable in futuro.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VERSUS M/S. OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES (P) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20035 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79828&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.