-
Special Bench of the Tribunal in JCIT VERSUS MUKUND LTD. gave its view regarding advance payment of rent to be capital expenditure on findings, inter alia, that there was termination clause, by which premature termination did not provide for refund of premium, claimed to be advanced rent, there was no clause in the agreement to show that the amount paid by the assessee as advance rent for all future years and the lump sum payment of future years rent had been paid to avail some concession for advance payment of rent or for some other business consideration.
M/S. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-II
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19837 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79520&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Plea of the Assessee ought to have been accepted in the first instance by the AO.
M/S. P.H. KUMAR & CO. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19836 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79522&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This Court is not persuaded to take a view different from that of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, which has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court VERSUS ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -LTU VERSUS MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19835 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79523&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital Premium: The test of human probabilities cannot be applied to business transactions. Share premium is collected as per the understanding between the parties. The AO cannot treat the share premium as unexplained cash credit only because the same is not commensurate with the income and financial strength of the assessee. The AO cannot reach this conclusion without further investigation and bringing material on record (All imp judgements referred)
Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19834 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 68
-
During the course of hearing assessee fairly conceded that the assessee has not challenged the addition of this amount. Therefore, the factum of obtaining loan is proved.
SHRI TEJINDER SINGH VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER IT, RANGE-1 BHOPAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19833 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76858&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
n the present case, the assessee has deducted the TDS, but not remitted to the Government account, for that he has not given any satisfactory explanation either before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation.
M/S. ESWAR EXPORTS VERSUS ADDL. CIT, RANGE-6, VISAKHAPATNAM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19832 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76861&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The inquiry for the purpose of grant of approval u/s 80G relates to, whether the trust is registered u/s 12A, whether it is a trust wholly for charitable purpose or religious purpose and whether the income received by it is liable to be considered u/s 11.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEMPTIONS) VERSUS SHREE TAPESHWAR HANUMAJI BAJRANG CHARITY TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19831 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79491&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was Grasim Industries and Samruddhi Cement Ltd. who had applied to the High Court for approval of the demerger scheme, the scheme was under contemplation and, therefore, approval anticipated. This does not mean that approval by the High Court was a certainty.
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. (AS THE SUCCESSOR OF SAMRUDDHI LTD.) VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – 1 & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19830 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79493&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such record, the AO formed the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is missing.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -1 VERSUS ANDALEEB SEHGAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19829 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79495&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest for the period between the filing of the claim petition and passing of the award is for the period when the claimant for the first time approached the Claims Tribunal asking the Tribunal to assess and award compensation and the time consumed in disposing of the Claim Petition.
SHRI RUPESH RASHMIKANT SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19828 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79498&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue's SLP challenging Bombay HC order quashing re-assessment notice (initiated beyond 4 years) issued on assessee (an asset reconstruction and securitization company) for AY 2011-12 is dismissed.
Asset Reconstruction Company India Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19827 (SC)
-
Alternative arrangements were made to remit the refund either through RTGS/NEFT or by issuing cheque or DD to the assessee and disposes of the writ petition with a direction to expedite the refund process.
Avo Carbon Holdings LLC Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19826 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
As the third proviso relates to 'determination of value of property', and it is only a procedural amendment and not a substantive amendment which is normally prospective in nature.
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs DCIT, CC-3(4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19825 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 50C
-
Penalty paid is in the nature of damages paid for settlement of disputes to safeguard business interest and incurred in carrying out assessee's business operations and thus, is incidental to the business operations.
Air India Ltd Vs D y. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19824 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The compensation for granting the right to render BPO services was chargeable to tax u/s 28(va) owing to its revenue character, and thus the same was treated as a business receipt by the assessee as well.
Cummins Inc Vs DDIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19823 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
As the Tribunal has already held that the interest on NRE/ Foreign Currency Bank Account is exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act, there is no question of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on this amount.
John James D’Souza Vs T he Asst. Com m is sioner of Incom e T ax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19822 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When there was no writing off of liabilities and only the sub-head, under which, the liability was shown in the account books of the assessee was changed, there could be no cessation of liability.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19821 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79474&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The argument advanced by Counsel for the assessee as well as the Department can be made only in respect of a rate prescribed under a Finance Act or an Act providing a surcharge if the same is brought into force on the lst of April of the assessment year in which assessment for the previous year is being done as the same would only provide for ascertaining the rate, for existing liability under the Income Tax Act.
SRI LOKNATH GOENKA, SMT. NARMADA DEVI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19820 (HC-PATNA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79477&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
During the course of assessment of AY 2013-2014, the AO noticed that the assessee had received loan of ₹ 10.27 crores from various firms and companies in AY 2012-13. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to such firms also, which were returned back or were not responded to.
AFRICAN DAISY REALTY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19819 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79479&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The questions of law as proposed by the revenue has no longer integreta in view of the decision of this Court in the case MGM EXPORTS. The ratio of the decision of this Court, which has been applied by the Tribunal is that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Act.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19818 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79484&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.