-
The parties have confirmed the sales made to the assessee and this was the first year of assessee’s business, therefore, there was all the more reason for the suppliers to insist for cash payments. If the AO had a doubt about the genuineness of the above purchases, the AO could have summoned one or all of those three parties and asked them questions in relation to the confirmation letters, to satisfy himself that the contents thereof were, in fact, based on actual purchases for which cash was paid by the Assessee. He could have asked them to produce their books of accounts, bill books, etc.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – X VERSUS MRS. KRISHNA GUPTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79704&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT reasoning appears to be that Section 80P was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2007 introducing specifically that the benefit of exemption would not apply to any cooperative bank other than Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The circular then stated that in the light of this inclusion – to Section 80P by way of introduction of Section 80P(4), the exemption could not be availed of by the banks invested in Regional Rural Banks.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER VERSUS M/S BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19937 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79705&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the expenditure is not to be treated as capital expenditure, then it will have to be treated as revenue expenditure was perhaps not addressed in the manner it should have been treated by the ITAT. Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter to the ITAT for decision afresh on the treatment to be accorded to the expenditure incurred by the Assessee of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 30.86 crores and whether in particular, it should be treated as a revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ELEL HOTEL & INVESTMENT LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19936 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79706&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The case was processed u/s 143(1) disallowing the deduction claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of ₹ 1,24,04,182/- and demand of ₹ 42,83,943/- has been raised. There is an obvious non-application of mind by the AO to the above fact. If indeed the above deduction claimed by the Petitioner was not allowed in the first instance, and the intimation sent to the Petitioner u/s 143(1) indicated this, then the question of any income escaping assessment on that score did not arise.
SHREE BHAVANI POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23 (3), & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19935 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79707&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SPECL, has merely acted as broker and did not have the full authority to negotiate and finalize the rate of coal. Therefore, By no stretch can be termed as an agent wholly and exclusively associated to any particular non-resident supplier.
Hind Energy & Coal Benefication (India) Ltd Vs ITO (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19934 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 195
-
The Tribunal has given an unnatural and strained meaning to the expression supply. Yes, by entering into the agreement and by supplying the material PUCH authorized its use but its actual use would start only when production and sale commenced and that would be the stage at which royalty would be payable.
The Majestic Auto Ltd Vs The CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19933 (HC-P&H)
-
The nature of the transaction will depend on facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly did not get weighed down by multiplication of decisions dealing with separate sets of fact. This approach adopted by the Tribunal would not lead to a substantial question of law as proposed by the Appellant.
SWASTIK REALTORS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19932 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79687&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an officer of the Department is allowed to choose a date on which a copy of the order which has to be given effect to or acted upon is sent to the officer concerned, it will defeat the very purpose for which the legislature has stipulated definite time limits in various provisions of the Act for the authorities to perform their statutory tasks in a time bound manner.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC, M/S. NUOVO PIGNONE, M/S. GE JAPAN LTD., GE ENGINE SERVICES DISTRIBUTION LLC VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19931 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79693&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that an acknowledgement may have been issued in Form- 4 by the CIT, CPC did not provide any immunity to the Petitioners if it was found that the declaration was contrary to Section 193 of the FA, 2016 which begins with a non-obstante clause.
ANKUSH JAIN, VAIBHAV JAIN VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19930 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79694&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear from the correspondence with Audit Party that there was no independent decision arrived at by the AO to form ‘reasons to believe’ for reopening of the assessment after being satisfied that there was an escapement of income. The above correspondence also indicates that not once but on two separate occasions the AO clearly formed the opinion that this was not a case fit for reopening of the assessment and that the AO was constrained, notwithstanding that opinion, to reopen the assessment on the express instructions issued to him vide letter dated 11th December 2012 of the Addl.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-21 VERSUS LALIT BAGAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19929 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79695&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
One of the essential conditions in Section 69A is that the Assessee should be the owner of the money and it should not be recorded in his books of accounts. This was a pre-condition to the next step of the Assessee offering no explanation about the nature and source of the acquisition of such money.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VERSUS ANOOP JAIN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19928 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79696&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above ₹ 1 crore, that is, ₹ 6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than ₹ 1 crore. We find that on merits a disallowance of ₹ 19,39,60,866/- was based solely on third party information, which was not subjected to any further scrutiny.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19926 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79697&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Departement's appeals is dismissed citing low tax effect and applies CBDT's recent circular which had enhanced the monetary limits for filing Departmental appeals before HC to Rs. 1 cr.
Jai Bhole Steel Tubes (P) Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19925 (HC-P&H)
-
While it is true that the demand u/s. 115- QA would be in addition to the total income, the fact of the matter is that in the present case it forms an integral part of the impugned assessment order u/s. 143 (3) of the Act it is not possible for this Court to read this part of the order separate from the rest of the assessment order.
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19924 (HC-DELHI)
-
The phrase order giving rise to a demand in Rule 68B to the Second Schedule of the Act should be read as the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act and not merely an acknowledgment or an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act.
Gauravbhai Hargovindhai Dave Vs TAX RECOVERY OFFICER 4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19923 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 143(1)
-
It defies cannon of all commercial logic and expediency that all these supplier parties are supplying material without seeking their payments from the assessee as not even a single payment has been made by the assessee to all these aforesaid suppliers till the end of the previous year.
M/s. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Ltd. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19922 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the tenant in this case happened to be the subsidiary/joint venture company incurring persistent losses and the rent was waived, so it cannot be reason not to tax the amount due from tenant. Therefore, the rent payable by the tenant by waiver would amount to application of income and it cannot be construed as overriding title.
M/s CRP (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19921 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee is entitled to the deduction of profits made during the sick period in terms of the provisions of section 115JB(vii).
Rama Pulp and Papers Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19920 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In order to claim exemption w.r.t gift ingredients to be satisfied: (a) Transfer, (b) No consideration, (c) Voluntary action and (d) acceptance by donee, further in case of gift of immovable property execution of gift deed is required, failing which gift would not be treated as valid gift under law.
Shri Bonifacio D’souza Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19919 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The debenture cannot be treated as a capital asset of the issuer company because it is a kind of debt instrument. It is a capital asset in the hands of the person subscribing to the debenture or the allottee of the debenture.
R.S. Triveni Foods P. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19918 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(ix)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.