-
The alleged contribution to superannuation fund in Australia represents perquisite u/s 17(2)(v) and hence would be taxable in the hands of assessee, who is an Australian national, seconded by Amway Australia to Amway India under a contract agreement for 3 years.
William Scott Pinckney Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19998 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
MAT credit available on account of excess payment of tax in the earlier years is that of the assessee itself and not of the demerged company. All the taxes paid / payable before the appointed date shall be on account of assessee and those paid / payable after the appointed date will be to the account of TCS Ltd.
TCS E-Serve International Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19997 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The provisions of Sec. 50C cannot be applied to the case of deeming the value of consideration like cases covered by provisions of 45(3). Provisions of Sec.45(3) and 50C operate in different spheres and are not overlapping. The special provisions [u/s. 45(3)] prevail over general provisions.
Shri Sarrangan Ashok Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19996 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 50C
-
We have perused the relevant record including the returns of income filed under section 139(1) as well as returns of income filed u/s 153A and noted that the assessee has claimed the respective amounts of losses for these three assessment years in the returns of income under section 139(1) and the same amounts were also claimed in the returns of income filed u/s 153A though in the acknowledgements generated by the departmental system for the returns of income filed under section 153A the amount of loss has not been shown.
M/S. SHREE KRISHNA VATIKA BUILDMART PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19995 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77389&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no provision of condonation of delay for filing of the Miscellaneous Application, then the Miscellaneous Application filed belatedly is not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR VERSUS M/S GILLETTE INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19994 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77390&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 80IB(13) imports sec. 80IA(5) and (7) to (12) to be applicable to the eligible business carried out by the eligible undertaking in question. We notice in this backdrop that the clinching legislative’s expression 80IA(7) is accounts of the undertaking than a complete set off separate books of account. And sec. 80HH(5), 80I(7), sec. 80IA(7) as well as sec. 80IB(13) also use the very statutory expression accounts of the undertaking.
ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ASSAM VERSUS OIL INDIA LTD., DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19993 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77394&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee, has consistently pleaded that the payment was made in cash for purchasing tickets of cricket match for its staff/customers and for providing food to them during cricket match and that the payment was made to different vendors at the spot where the cricket match was conducted for buying food items. But no evidence has been filed to substantiate the same. Therefore the fact remains that the assessee has incurred expenditure in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/-, thus violating the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act calling for disallowance of the same.
M/S KAPSONS FASHION PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2 (1), CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19992 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the assessee has offered income u/s.44AD he should separately shown in the computation of income that the profit has been earned from civil contract and it has been offered for taxation under the presumptive Section 44AD. The assessee has also not produced any details before us of the relevant part of the Income Tax Return in which there is a separate columns for the income offered u/s.44AD.
SANJEEV SABLOK VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (4), JAMSHEDPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19991 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77396&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue derived from land is not deemed to have been included in any income arising from transfer of land. The other interpretation given by the assessee, that even sale constitutes revenue cannot be pressed into service because the transaction of sale results in destruction of a revenue or rent generating asset.
KRISH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (3), ALWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19990 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79777&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute that there was agreement and both the parties have agreed. The assessee has made the payments as per the agreements which were acknowledged by the recipient, the cheque payment also was made in the bank account to clear the debt of the vendor which was evidenced in the plaintiff copy filed before the District Judge.
D.S.N. MALLESWARA RAO VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3) GUNTUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19989 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77370&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No amount was outstanding as per the recitals of the sale deed. There was no mention with regard to the fact that the Managing director has given promissory note towards part of sale consideration in the sale deed. As per CIT(A), there was no entry in the company’s books of accounts with regard to amounts received from Sri K.Mallesh for pending sale consideration. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the transactions were related to the company in respect of sale transaction of Agreement cum GPA dated 27.06.2001.
M. MALA KONDAIAH VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE VISAKHAPATNAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19988 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77372&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to deposit the said amount. In the light of this provision, contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19987 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79760&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is in respect of the assessment year prior to the date of application. It is in the circumstances that registration was finally given on 08.06.2015. We are required to consider proviso below sub-Section 2 of Section 12 A. The proviso provides that if registration has been given to the Trust or the Institution under Section 12 AA of the Act, 1961.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S SHIV KUMAR SUMITRA DEVI SMARAK SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19986 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79761&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from perversity, as the Tribunal without considering the aforesaid issues has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Rule 27 of the Rules by merely stating that the counsel for the assessee could not point out the grounds that were decided against him. More so, when the grounds raised by the appellant were manifestly apparent from the order passed by the CIT(A).
SIR SYED EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19985 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79763&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not the case of the Department that this Court had stayed the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, as well as the Tribunal in the Tax Case Appeals. Just because the order reducing the penalty has been put under challenge in the Tax Case Appeals, it cannot be said that the order reducing the penalty itself has been kept under abeyance. In this background, it can only be said that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 279 (1A) of the Act and the mere challenge to the order reducing the penalty may not suffice to deny such a benefit.
K.M. MAMMEN VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CCA) , THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19984 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79765&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38): The fact that "long-term capital gains" on listed shares are exempt from tax does not mean that "long-term capital loss" on such shares is not available for set-off against taxable income. While the gains are exempt, there is no bar against claiming set-off of the loss (J.H. Gotla 156 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished, CBDT Circular No.7/2013 dated 16.07.2013 referred, Raptakos Bret 69 SOT 383 (Mum) followed)
United Investments vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19983 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10(38)
-
Doctrine of promissory estoppel: Once a promise has been solemnly given by the State with an intention that it would be acted upon and which has been indeed acted upon and liabilities suffered by the promisee, the State cannot be permitted to backtrack on the promise and change its position so as to cause loss to the promisee. The eligibility for sales-tax exemption cannot be withdrawn under GST
K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19982 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 148, 282, Rule 127: Mere issue of a s. 148 notice is not sufficient. Service is essential. If the postal authorities return the notice unserved, the Dept has to serve under Rule 127(2) using one of the four sources of address (such as PAN address, Bank address etc). The failure to do so renders the reassessment proceedings invalid (All imp judgements referred)
Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19981 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148, 282
-
The work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff. There is no lethargy on the part of the Dept in filing up said posts. The Dept is expected to follow up the proposals to fill up the posts of Assistant Registrars in such quota as well as for issuing promotions for the posts of Deputy Registrars so that all these pots to the extent possible can be filled up at the earliest
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19980 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Under section 43B, certain deductions are allowable on actual payment. By not debiting the service tax to the P&L A/c, the assessee has not claimed it as an expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance of the same u/s 43B of the Act would not arise. In the case before us, the AO is not disallowing the expenditure, but is bringing it to tax, which is not the purpose of the section.Therefore, the addition made u/s 43B is deleted.
M/S. COMFORTLINE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD, HYDERABAD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4) HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19979 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77338&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.