-
The withholding certificate which directed TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner was unsustainable in law.
Bently Nevada Llc Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19777 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
These findings have been recorded in conformity with the requirements of Section 269UD(1) of the Act and hence deserve to be upheld.
Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19776 (SC)
-
Taxation regime applicable to non-residents need not be identical to that applicable to residents.
Rajan Bhatia Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Through Chairman & Anr
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19775 (SC) · Section 115BBDA
-
Would mean that the IT-Dept. should collect interest, for non-deduction/short-deduction of tax at source on the interest amount paid on the Income Tax refund to the assessee, from itself i.e. the Income Tax Department should charge interest, under Section 234B of the Act, on the Income Tax Department itself. This is extremely difficult to accept.
B.J. Services Company Middle East Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19774 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section 234B
-
When it comes to taxation, what is relevant is the provision of the Act which deals with taxability, but not guidelines issued by ICAI.
Reliance Corporate IT Park ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19773 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The consent waiver form, could not be termed as information or statements of account and affairs within the meaning of Section 133(6), the non-compliance of which is the primary ingredient to invoke the penal provisions u/s 272A(2)(c).
Shri Shalin Tandon Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee-company having received money as shareholder on the liquidation of a Company, Sec. 46(2) is clearly applicable and the capital gain or loss is required to be computed by applying the said provision.
Turner Morrison Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19771 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 46(2)
-
Dividend cannot be paid on such convertible debentures in a period before the date of conversion and such holders of convertible debentures cannot be granted voting rights at par with voting rights of shareholders during pre-conversion period.
CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19770 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
The loss in economic value of the financial interest, constituting insurable interest in the case of Adidas AG, which though had been computed with reference to loss of stock by the fire in the hands of the assessee, was distinct and separate from the insurance claimed by the assessee from the Bajaj Allianz.
Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19769 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since, the amount is in the nature of professional services sought by the legal professionals involved in the profession/occupation/vocation of arbitration, the amount is liable to TDS as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Act.
HAL Offshore Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19768 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194J
-
The amount received by the assessee from the 'HUF', being its member, is a capital receipt in his hands and is not eligible to income tax.
Shri Pankil Garg Vs The Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19767 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence and record and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
M/S. ROYAL RICH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19766 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79352&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 VERSUS M/S. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19765 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79351&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The learned Counsel for the parties agree that these substantial questions of law be taken up for consideration together.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS V.S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19764 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79350&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer, on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account reopened the assessment. No return has been filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 which is discernable from the copy of the reasons placed at paper book pages 4&5.
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH BAHADAURIA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 32 (5), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19763 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76632&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It has not been shown that the assessee’s sales at any time in the past exceeded the threshold monetary limit required for tax audit. An assessee would normally heed to the advice by his counsel, who, it is stated, failed to advise him in the matter.
PANKAJ BHOTIKA VERSUS ITO, WARD-46 (2), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19762 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76631&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that the contention of the assessee is contrary to the record and further once the AO has issued a notice u/s 148 dated 29.12.2009 which is also established from the Despatch Register filed before us, then the dispute of the service of the same will not render the assessment proceedings null and void.
SHRI RAM NARAYAN S/O LATE SHRI NANDA JI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), KOTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19761 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: No rational person with sound mind will invest huge amount in the share subscription of a paper/shell company having no worthwhile business/project in hand at such a huge premium. The onus is on the assessee to to prove the genuineness of the transaction as well credit worthiness of the share subscribers. The failure to produce the subscribers and statement of the director that the entire investment is bogus justifies the addition
Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19760 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature. A plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him. In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable. The constitutional validity of any provision and especially taxing provision cannot be struck down on such reasoning. In tax matters, neither any equity nor hardship has any role to play while deciding the rights of any taxpayer qua the Revenue
Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19759 (SC) · Section 35AC(7)
-
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results
PCIT vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19758 (SC) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.