-
The proceedings u/s 263, if any, qua the issue of grant of deduction u/s 80-IC, could have been initiated only with the period of two years from the end of the FY 2010-11 being the year in which the order u/s 154/143(1) was passed.
EAST INDIA UDYOG LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE – 3 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19958 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessment order dated 15.01.2013 was draft assessment order which is evident from the very heading of the order. Along with this draft assessment order, the AO has issued notice of demand u/s.156 and penalty notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) and therefore, procedure laid down in Section 144C has been violated.
KOHLER POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. (EARLIER KNOWN AS “LOMBARDINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED”). VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19957 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 28.12.10 reveals that the AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be levied.
SUNITA SHREEGOPAL BARASIA VERSUS ACIT RG 16 (1) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77286&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No error has been committed by the tribunal in allowing the appeals and remanding the matters to the A.O. The tribunal has recorded reasons in para 7, 8 and 9 of the order, as reproduced herein above, for remanding the matters to the A.O. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective assessee. The said evidence was rightly not considered by the A.O., Commissioner and the tribunal. The impugned orders passed by the tribunal in remanding the matter does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. No substantial question of law arise in both these appeals for consideration of this Court.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, VADODARA VERSUS RITAL R. PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19955 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79735&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeals for non prosecution is no longer res integra. Hence the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non prosecution without adverting to the merits of the matter.
THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CHENNAI-1 VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12 (3), CHENNAI-34.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19954 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made of ₹ 37,30,710/-, which is lesser cash in hand as compared with the books of accounts in which the assess has shown more cash in hand. It is neither a case under Section 68 nor Section 69-A. It was not a case where money is not recorded in the books of account of assessee, and in the present case cash in hand in the books of account was found to be more than the actual cash found during the course of search.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANPUR VERSUS M/S KESARWANI SHEETALAYA ALLD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19953 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79738&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The concept of make available requires that the fruits of the services should remain available to the service recipients in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skills etc. which is met in the instant case as can be reflected from the nature and duration of the contract. The short durability or permanent usage of the service envisages by the concept of make available services remains at the disposal of their service recipients.
H. J. Heinz Company Vs ADIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19952 (HC-DELHI)
-
The will has to be read in its entirety and not in bits & pieces as done by the revenue to understand the intention of the testator. The testator did not bequeath the property but bequeathed part of the sale consideration.
Kumar Rajaram Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19951 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Operation of both the stay orders has expired due to lapse of six month time period from the date of the order. Therefore, when the orders have outlived their utility and lost their force in course of time, nothing survives for either recall or modification.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (1) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19950 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77270&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A plain reading of Article 22(3) of the DTAA shows that the amounts received by the decree holder as compensation, towards breach of contract cannot fall within its ambit. The language of Article 22(3) is unambiguous. What falls within its ambit is only income received from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or gambling or betting of any nature. It is only such income which can be taxed, if at all, in India.
GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG VERSUS DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19949 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79723&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of provision i.e., Section 264 reveals that said Revisional Authority has powers to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order and said Revisional Authority has powers which includes powers to make orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that u/s 264 writ petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of a statutory revision u/s 264 to said Revisional Authority.
B. MURALIDHAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19948 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79724&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy making it clear that all questions raised by the writ petitioner including questions pertaining to cross-examination can be raised by the writ petitioner before CIT-A and the issue of whether the cash was rerouted to the writ petitioner being a factual dispute can also be gone into by CIT-A for taking a decision on writ petitioner's request for cross-examination.
M/S. MARINA SHIP BROKERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19947 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79725&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 144C provides for forwarding of the draft assessment order to the assessee so that he could, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, file objections before the DRP and the AO as to the variation sought to be made by the AO to the income or loss returned.
ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19946 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79726&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the Assessee is only a borrower from VCIPL of a sum of ₹ 16.73 crores (which the AO has restricted to ₹ 6.40 crores to the extent of available accumulated profits). Merely because Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of the voting power in both VCIPL as well as the Assessee will not permit the Revenue to tax the aforementioned loan as a deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee which is only the borrower. The said amount which is borrowed by the Assessee from VCIPL, in which Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of voting power can if it all, be taxed only as deemed dividend in the hands of Verizon Singapore and not the Assessee. No substantial question of law arises.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 VERSUS VERIZON INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19945 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79728&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There exists a prima-facie case to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under Sec. 50 & 51 of Black Money Act, 2015. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations can not be examined at this stage.
Raghav Bahl Vs Union Of India And Another
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19944 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The mandatory period of limitation under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be sought to be defeated by delaying the dispatch of the relevant order of the ITAT to the concerned 'jurisdictional' CIT. What is relevant is when the CIT (Judicial) representing the Department before the ITAT received the order, which in any event is generally made available in the public domain soon after the order is pronounced.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19943 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
If a particular income is included only in the total income under the Act but not under the total income of other country, or vice-versa, the same cannot qualify for the benefit under the provision. Therefore, the relief u/s. 90(1) (a)(i) of the Act has to be granted only to the extent of such doubly taxed income and not beyond that.
iGate Global Solutions Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19942 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 153A, 153C Search Assessments: The Act has separate provisions for making assessment in case of material found in the course of search from premises of assessee (s. 153A) as well as material found in course of search at premises of third party (S. 153C). Even if search happens in case of assessee, the AO cannot initiate proceedings u/s 153A if incriminating material is found during search of other person. Proceedings should be initiated u/s 153C and failure to do so renders the addition in the s. 153A assessment void-ab-initio (Vinod Kumar Gupta 165 DTR 409 (Del) distinguished)
Trilok Chand Chaudhary vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19941 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 153A, 153C
-
CIT(A) rightly observed that the payment of commission are made to non-resident overseas agents who have no PE or business activities in India and the services are also rendered outside India as such no income is arising to the non-resident commission agent in India and as such no TDS is deductible u/s 194-H which is applicable for resident Indians only. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ACIT, CIRCLE-30 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS ISHMAN INTERNATIONAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19940 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77249&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction under sub-Section 1 of 80IA shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant and the Assessee furnishes on furnishing his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19939 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79703&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.