-
The assessment orders for both the assessment years do not mention the ground under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, viz., for concealing of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
M/S. SOORYA DRUG HOUSE VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 THODUPUZHA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19797 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76735&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a matter of record that Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case on hand was dismissed vide the Tribunal’s order in ITA No.280/Bang/2017 dated 03.08.2018 by relying on the CBDT Circular No.3/2018; that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limits prescribed therein.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, TUMKUR. VERSUS M/S. SACRED HEART SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19796 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76736&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A statement has been placed on record on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions stating that before Ext.P1 judgment was brought to the notice of the authority, action had already been initiated by issuing the demand notices.
M/S AMALGAM AQUACULTURE APPLICATIONS LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1 (1), KOCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19795 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79440&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Ultimate finding with respect to the question of allowability of deductions under Section 80P is yet to be rendered by the Appellate Authority. Therefore a uniform insistence for payment of 20% of the amount, pending disposal of the appeals, cannot be held as justified.
THE PULPATTA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19794 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79442&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The language or expression of sub-section (1) of Section 132 is clear and unambiguous.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU, THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3) , VERSUS M/S. ASSOCIATED MINING CO.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19793 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79443&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an order is passed by the CIT (A) on merits despite the fact that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex-parte.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEPTIONS) VERSUS SHREE NIRMAN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19792 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was obligatory on the Assessees to satisfactorily account for the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transactions of the so-called providers of such cash in such huge sums.
RAJIV GUPTA Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19791 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 197/ Rule 28AA TDS: An order u/s 197 is quasi-judicial & must be supported by valid & cogent reasoning. It has to be based on objective criteria and relevant material. On facts, there is arbitrariness and non-application of mind at various levels which vitiates the certificate. The reasons do not conform to the requirement of s. 197 r. w. Rule 28 AA. The settled legal position is that orders passed by a statutory authority under "dictation" of a superior officer or anyone else is bad in law
Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19790 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
The Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Benami Act, 1988, comes into force on 01.11.2016 and does not have retrospective effect. Unless a contrary intention is reflected, every legislation is presumed and intended to be prospective. In the normal course of human behavior, one is entitled to arrange his affairs keeping in view the laws for the time being in force and such arrangement of affairs should not be dislodged by retrospective application of law. The High Court can strike down wrong exercise of jurisdiction u/A 226, 227 individual to save individuals from lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment
Niharika Jain vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19789 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Suppression of profit/ fictitious loss in stocks/ derivatives by way of Client Code Modification (CCM): CCM within 1% is absolutely normal. By no stretch of imagination can any AO consider a transaction on the Stock Exchange as income of a person other than the one who has either actually received monies in his bank account (in case of profit) and/or paid any monies from his bank account (in case of losses). The AO has to show that the losses were purchased and the party was given cheque or cash payment in view of such favours
DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19788 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 56(2)(vii): The stand of the Dept that in the case of an individual, a "HUF" is not a "relative" and that while a gift by the individual to the HUF is exempt, a gift from the HUF to its member is taxable u/s 56(2)(vii) is not correct. S. 56 (2) (vii) provides that the members of the 'HUF' are to be taken as "relatives". The converse is not provided because on first principles, amounts received by a member from the 'HUF' cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation. Terming by the PCIT of decisions of the Tribunal as "incorrect" tantamounts to judicial indiscipline and will lead to chaos
Pankil Garg vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19787 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
As decided in own case looking to the nature of expenditure and nature of business activity of the assessee, it would reveal that these expenditures were not wholly required, in a sense, for the purpose of business or could it be termed that these expenses were exclusively incurred for the purpose of business.
SHRI RAM KRUPA MEDICARE P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIR. 2 (1) (1) BARODA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19786 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee does not satisfy the one limb of first condition of section 271AAA(2) of the Act, i.e., admission of undisclosed in a statement u/s 132(4).
SMT. SHOBHA SARDANA, C/O-M/S. RRA TAXINDIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19785 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76700&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 12AA governs the procedure for Registration and revocation of Registration once granted. Sub-section (3) of the said Section mandates that Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner as it may, without affording a hearing to the Trust or Institution in terms of the said provision, the Certificate once granted u/s 12A cannot be cancelled.
JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S CRM JAT POST GRADUATE COLLEGE AND VICE-VERSA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19784 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76701&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee is an agriculturist selling his crop through M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, Panchkula and he was receiving the amount against the crops from the said Commission Agent, therefore it cannot be said that the assessee received or paid amounts in cash as a deposit or loan rather the amounts received in cash were against the agriculture crops, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case.
SH. HARDEEP SINGH VERSUS THE JCIT RANGE-III AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-17 CHANDIGARH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19783 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76703&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Non-filing of a return under sections 139(1) or 139(2) of the said Act was not involved. Neither is there any ratio in favour of the assessee in HARYANA HOTELS LTD.
BILASPUR SPINNING MILLS & INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – II, CALCUTTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19782 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79407&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondents have already collected over ₹ 185 crores from the Petitioner, as against the total demand raised of around ₹ 873.4 crores. The year-wise percentage of demand collected for the years 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 is over 21%.
M/S. DABUR INVEST CORP. VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19781 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79410&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the impugned order u/s. 281-B does not indicate that the AO formed an opinion about the reasonable likelihood of the recovery becoming difficult due to inadequacy of the assets of the Petitioner.
DABUR INVEST CORP Vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19780 (HC-DELHI)
-
The impugned expenditure on renovation and interior work of stadium incurred by Cricket Club was for upgradation of the existing facilities and did not create a new asset or a source of enduring benefit and hence, not capital in nature.
The Cricket Club of India Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19779 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) would not affect the assessee's liability to tax as even if the amount are disallowed and added to assessee's income, the same would be exempted u/s. 10A.
BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19778 (SC) · Sections 10A, 40(a)(ia)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.