-
The additional compensation of ₹ 9 Crores was payable to the assessee only pursuant to consent terms dated 03/01/2012 filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ACIT – 24 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI ANIL GULABDAS SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19877 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77022&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A.O has nowhere in the assessment order referred to any material which can prove the complicity of assessee in the alleged accommodation entry operation.
MS. AYUSHI JAIN VERSUS ITO, WARD – 22 (4), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19876 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77023&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are of the view that the company having occupied the property for its own purposes, no notional rent can be added. It may be germane to mention here that this is the only property owned and occupied by the assessee as its registered office.
M/S IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD 12 (1) NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19875 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77024&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the statement of the seller is solely relied on by the AO, it is the duty of the AO to ask the assessee that the seller has stated that he received sale consideration more than the documented price and ask the assessee if he wanted to cross examine, to provide an opportunity to cross examine the seller.
SMT. KARUTURI VIJAYA BHARATHI VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (1), GUNTUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19874 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77027&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
TDS u/s. 194A would not govern the taxability of the receipt as it is not a charging section and would arise only if the payment is in the nature of income of the payee.
Shri Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19873 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Till the approval was granted, Samruddhi Cement Ltd. could not have anticipated or contemplated flowing of the income in its coffers.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax – 1 & anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19872 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 234C
-
The primary facts relating to scheme of demerger of assets from its parent (transferor) and subsequent transfer to Indus Infrastructure Ltd., were within the knowledge of AO when he had passed the original assessment order.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 & ANR. Vs BHARTI INFRATEL LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19871 (SC)
-
Hence it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be presumed that the assessee visited a particular merchant and purchased the dress material from him with intention to participate in the lot.
Sri.Rajmohan V.V. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19870 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Income tax has to be levied on real income and on correct facts. It cannot be levied based on patently incorrect facts or estimates.
Shri Shyam Sundar Rawat Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19869 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the services and facilities of the assessee are not accessible to the general public.
Otters Club Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19868 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
It was the first time, the Government of India took a decision to permit foreign insurance companies to set up general insurance business in India. The entire matter was regulated by the Government of India under the relevant regulations.
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI (4) , CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19867 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79597&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Contention of the writ petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 2(14)(iii)(b) contemplates calculating distance of the land in question from the nearest municipality.
FRANCIS MARIA SELVARAJ VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19866 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79598&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
the entire capital and assets of the transferor-companies having vested in the assessee, as a result of the said amalgamations, the assessee became the sole owner of the capital of the transferor-companies. There was, therefore, no extinguishment of the right of the assessee in participating in the capital on the liquidation of the transferor-companies.
M/S. L.G. BALAKRISHNAN & BROS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-II COIMBATORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19865 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79599&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
the premises where the employees were housed, for which, they paid rental the company were in the near vicinity of the mills, that the rental of those premises were fixed and did not change with the change of the occupant, that the rental deducted from the wages of the employee or employees occupying the premises, that those employees were engaged in the main business of the company and their residence in the buildings in dispute was incidental to the main occupation i.e. the carrying on of the business of the company and that in true perspective, those buildings were part of the business equipment of the owner or in other words, it was the business asset of the owner.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19864 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79600&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The AO has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and the reasons must have a live link with the formation of belief.
NILAMBEN SANDIPBHAI PARIKH VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19863 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79602&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the Assessee Company-Respondent failed to discharge the onus required u/s 68, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income.
SHRI SAJID KHAN, AASHIQ KHAN, AKRAM KHAN, SMT. RUKHSANA BEGUM, SALEEM KHAN, AKBAR KHAN, AAKIL KHAN VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19862 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79604&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In an environment in which retrospectivity was attached only to the taxation and not to tax reliefs or concessions, such an approach is a pleasant departure from legacy practices.
Dinesh Madhavlal Patel Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19861 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The transaction in question doesn't form a live link for 'reasons to believe' that assessee's income had escaped assessment.
NESTLE SA Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19860 (HC-DELHI)
-
Though the law on applicability of the requirement of notice u/s. 143(2) was quite clear from SC decision in Blue Moon's case, however, in the present case what needs to be considered is the impact of Section 292BB.
LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19859 (SC) · Sections 143(2), 292BB
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks (282x gain in 12 months): The meticulous paper work of routing the transaction through banking channel is futile because the results are altogether beyond human probabilities. Neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in unknown stock. It is a sham transaction to convert undisclosed income into disclosed by evading tax under the garb of LTCG in connivance with entry providers (Pooja Ajmani & Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) followed
Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19858 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.