-
Liability of professionals acting as Non-executive directors: Practicing professionals are prohibited from acting as full time directors. They can only act as non-executive directors not performing administrative duties. Such persons cannot be prosecuted for offenses committed by the company. it will be a travesty of justice to prosecute all Directors if the offense is committed without their knowledge. The accounts are signed by such directors in a routine manner and they are not subject to vicarious liability (Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 34 followed)
Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20034 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147/148/292B: The officer recording the reasons u/s 148(2) for reopening the assessment & the officer issuing notice u/s 148(1) has to be the same person. If the reasons are recorded by the DCIT but the notice is issued by the ITO, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. The s. 148 notice is a jurisdictional notice. Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured u/s 292B. The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant
Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20033 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 147, 148, 292B
-
S. 254(1): The Tribunal should not make general observations that there are "contrary decisions". This statement led us to direct counsel to examine the law and bring to our attention any decision contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills 123 ITR 429 etc. We are now informed by Counsel that there are no contrary decisions. 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. We request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations
PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20032 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
It is trite law that at the stage of show cause notice, charge sheet, summons or notice to appear, constitutional courts would not interfere so as to interject the proceedings and thereby prevent the authorities from proceeding with. The mere issuance of a show cause notice or notice to appear for the purposes of investigation does not infringe the right of a party, as it does not affect the right of such party.
SRI. SACHIN NARAYAN Vs THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20031 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 132
-
While exercising powers of enhancement u/s. 251, CIT(A) can consider new source of income that is emanating from records produced before AO, but was though not dealt by AO.
S.D. Traders Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20030 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Where queries have been raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to the same, then the non-discussion of the same or non-rejection of the response of the assessee, would necessarily mean that the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee. Thus an opinion is formed during the regular Assessment proceedings, bars the Assessing Officer to reopen the same only on account of a different view.
Marico Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) and Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20029 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
No fee was leviable to the assessee u/ s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay pertaining to AY 2015-16.
Vkare Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC-TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20028 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 234E
-
Assessee had entered into agreement for sale in FY 2012-13, moreover the stamp duty was also paid during the same FY, however, the sale of gala was registered during F.Y. 2013-14. The final registration of sale agreement was only a fulfillment of contractual obligation and accordingly provisions of section 43CA, did not apply at the time of entering into a transaction.
Rajprabha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Golf course is a plant on which assessee is entitled to the depreciation at the rate of 25%. In fact, by creating these facilities, the assessee has created a service facility for its members and it produces revenue for the assessee. It is not always necessary that each plant should produce certain other tangible goods.
Landbase India Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20026 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The provisions of the Income Tax Act as in statute books as on the first day of the relevant assessment year are applicable for that assessment year and therefore, the amended provisions of section 54F are applicable in the present case. In view of proviso (a)(ii) of Sec. 54F(1), whether the deduction u/s. 54F (1) is allowable in respect of second property or first property, it is not material because in both the situations, the proviso will be operating and as a result, the assessee will not be eligible for deduction u/s. 54F (1).
Smt. Anuradha Rajendra Gupta Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20025 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Bogus purchases in s. 153D search assessment: There is serious suspicion about the conduct of the assessee in taking additional ground challenging the issue of approval u/s 153D for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee is making an attempt is derail the issue on merits and to escape on technical ground. The affidavits filed by the AOs coupled with circumstantial evidences available in the assessment folders clearly establish the fact of obtaining necessary approval u/s 153D though copy of approval letter is not available in the assessment record. Argument that only profit can be assessed is not correct. 100% addition u/s 69C towards bogus purchases confirmed (NK Proteins 292 CTR 354 (SC) followed)
Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20024 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 254(2): (i) Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay (ii) An order can be said to suffer from a "mistake apparent from the record" if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same
Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20023 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2)
-
It is an undisputed fact that though business of assessee came to a halt in the year 2010, yet the assessee was liquidating its assets. The assessee had only a leasehold rights on the land and it had to get the permission of SIPCOT for transfer of leasehold rights. The major portion of expenses claimed is on account of sales tax demand of ₹ 53.33 lakhs, property tax, audit fees, property maintenance, settlement amount paid on labour court’s order.
HIRSH BRACELET INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (2) , BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20022 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77453&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Gem India Mfg. Co. has considered and decided this issue in respect of activity of cuttings and polishing of diamonds and it was held that said activity does not result new article or thing which can be held as manufacturing or production. Thus once the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then it is a binding law for all the authorities including the AO.
M/S. VISHAL GEMS INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DCIT CIRCLE – 7 JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20021 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77461&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO who has chosen to apply N.P rate of 12% without bringing on record any comparable case where such an exorbitant rate of N.P was either shown by the assessee or assessed by the AO which has become final. AO while framing assessment has totally lost sight of the fact that during the year under consideration the turnover of the assessee has grown up by more than five times as compared to last year and therefore, assessee cannot be expected to report the same rate of Net Profit as was earned in last year.
SH. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA, CONTRACTOR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MATHURA. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20020 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77463&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot override the provisions of charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act and also where under section 90(2) of the Act, it is provided that DTAAs would override domestic law, in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - CIRCLE I, PUNE. VERSUS KOSO INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20019 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77464&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
TPO in the second round carried out the benchmarking exercise all afresh treating the assessee as KPO service provider as against his earlier view of a BPO service provider in the first round. After passing of the order by the TPO on 21.11.2016, the AO proceeded to straightaway pass the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 28-11-2016. It is, ergo, overt that pursuant to the fresh benchmarking done by the TPO in his second order, the AO omitted to pass a draft order which could have been challenged by the assessee before the DRP or the CIT(A).
M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20018 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the three sub-contractors are relatives of the partners of the assessee firm, and assessing authority recorded categorical finding had rightly disallowed the expenditure claimed in view of provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The argument raised by assessee does not have any force that it is a case under Section 37 and not under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act.
M/S AKRATI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX -4, PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AGRA AND ANOTHER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20017 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79807&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no violation of the legislative condition as assessee's oil wells had come into existence after earth digging through rigs. The assessee used its oil rigs, for bringing into existence the new oil well / eligible undertaking than having formed the same through the old plant and machinery. Crude oil is treated interchangeable to 'mineral oil' as per Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948.
Oil India Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20016 (ITAT-GAUHATI)
-
A SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried on in an SEZ unit with AY 2012-13 and onwards.
M/s Safeflex International Ltd. Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20015 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 115JB(6)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.