-
There is no dispute about the sources of money wherefrom the expenditure had been incurred which has already suffered taxation in the hands of the company Spaze Towers and the very same money cannot be considered as representing undisclosed income of the appellants for which false explanation is being given as loan to attract the provisions of section 269SS r.w.s 271D.
M/S K.S. CHAWLA & SONS (HUF) , SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR, SHRI VIPIN SHARMA, SHRI AMAN SHARMA, SHRI SURINDER PAL SINGH CHAWLA, SHRI JASPAL SINGH CHAWLA, SHRI HARPAL SINGH CHAWLA, BHARAT BHUSHAN KUMAR VERSUS JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, GURGAON
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19978 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77339&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A comparative study of pre-amendment and post amendment provisions of Sec. 32(2) suggests that prior to the amendment, the set off was restricted to the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession whereas post amendment (i.e. the law applicable for the year under consideration) the set off is available from profits or gains chargeable for the previous year.
M/S HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE - 1 GHAZIABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19977 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77340&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
An overview of section 144C deciphers that a draft order passed under sub-section (1) is only a tentative order which does not fasten any tax liability on the assessee. In case variations to the income in the draft order are accepted by the assessee or no objections are received within 30 days, the AO completes the assessment under section 144C(3) on the basis of draft order and the matter ends.
DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE VERSUS ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19976 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77341&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Tribunal rightly arrived at the finding that all the material in regard to land development expenses was before the AO who had required the assessee to produce all the documents in relation to the same and after inquiring about the details of contract and the contract executed by assessee, the bill submitted and payment schedule made.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT VERSUS VAM RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19975 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79753&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not record any finding as to incorrect, erroneous or false return of income filed by the assessee which could lead to the fact that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. AO had only doubted the genuineness of the gifts on ground of human probabilities and had also doubted the creditworthiness of donors and genuineness of transaction.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL KANPUR VERSUS DINESH CHANDRA JAIN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19974 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79754&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The law applicable at the time of accrual of income is relevant in a case where a new liability has been fastened on assessee by virtue of any amendment.
Sri Loknath Goenka Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19973 (HC-PATNA)
-
The assessee was only a conduit through whom the funds were floated. Test of human probabilities was not applicable here since there was no contrary evidence to draw other inferences.
Anoop Jain Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19972 (HC-DELHI) · Section 69A
-
The transactions involving lowering/splitting of share consideration as also the non-compete fee received by the assessee[engaged in the brewery business] is a device adopted to evade taxes
M P Purushothaman Vs Commissioner of Income Tax VII
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19971 (HC-MADRAS)
-
We are still persuaded by the earlier years precedence, wherein the Tribunal has separately attributed profits in the hands of the assesse company wherein they have adopted 35% of the profit as against 75% of the global profit in respect of sales affected in India as done by AO.
Rolls Royce Plc. Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19970 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
MCI guidelines cannot decide the allowability or otherwise of an expenditure in t he hands of drug manufacturing companies or individuals other than doctors under the Act. This cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, more particularly when the assessee had given complete details of expenses together with supporting evidences before the ld AO. Sec 37 disallowance deserves to be deleted.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19969 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37
-
Merely on basis of the office being large, the same cannot be said to be vacant property so as to attract provisions of sec. 23 of the act.
Ideal Hitech Engineering Equipment (P) Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19968 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 23
-
Commercial prudence postulates that BIPL (Indian subsidiary) bears the ultimate responsibility of such rebates in respect of India sales, and thus the payment of such reimbursements. The payments qualify as a pure reimbursement of expenses and accordingly, not taxable in India
Braitrim UK Limited Vs DCIT (IT)-1(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19967 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The payment of fee, in absence of evidence of any services rendered, is not justified.
Vatika Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19966 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
After receipt of the impugned order of assessment dated 03.03.2016, assessee had filed a rectification application before the AO seeking correction of the mistake therein; of non-allowing of set off; which was followed up by reminder to the AO in this regard. Therefore, in our view, it stands to reason that the pendency of the rectification proceedings before the AO and the assessee’s expectation that the issue could be sorted out at that level has contributed in no small measure to the delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 before the CIT(A).
M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 3 (1) (1) , BENGALURU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19965 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If, you go through the points taken up by the PCIT for verification regarding interest income and turnover mismatch, the figure taken up by the PCIT is exactly one and the same. The assessee has reported interest income under the head sales turnover in its audit reports, whereas in ITR sales turnover and interest income has been shown separately. If, you add back sales turnover and interest income, then there would be no difference in turnover reported by the assessee in its audit report.
ARITRO ASHSISH ROY VERSUS ACIT-24 (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19964 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77319&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
MAT credit available to the assessee prior to that date even though, the same is arised on account of SEZ units, the credit for such MAT credit needs to be allowed to the assessee, but not to the demerged SEZ units. TCS Ltd has not claimed credit for MAT credit in their return of income.
DCIT-3 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19963 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77320&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. We, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order.
M/S. KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 1 [1] , MYSURU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19962 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77321&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is hardly any dispute between the parties inter alia about the basic admitted fact of the assessee to have raised the impugned share application money from eleven related parties, the AO having taken recourse to sec. 131/133(6) process in all of their cases, these investors having replied from the other end in support of the correctness of the share application money.
MODERN DALKHOLA FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) , JALPAIGURI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19961 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77322&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the Revenue accepts the view propounded by the assessee in response to the Revenue’s query, the AO has certainly to form an opinion whether or not the stand taken by the assessee is acceptable. Therefore, it must follow that 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 AO has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee.
MARICO LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19960 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79744&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is yet to enjoy a clear legal title on the trust property and therefore, the same could not have been treated as its income as per Sec. 5 of the Act. Even if we accept the Revenue's case in alternative that the trust fund had accrued in assessee's favour in AY 1995-96, we find no justification of the lower authorities' action seeking to re-assess the same.
Mahabodhi Society of India Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19959 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 5
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.