-
S. 170/ 292BB: A notice issued in the name of the amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void because the amalgamating entity ceases to exist. Participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in s. 292BB. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.
PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19757 (SC) · Sections 170, 292BB
-
Revenue department wanted to initiate the proceedings both u/s.147 as well as u/s.154, which itself has established that the information as well as the accounts were very much on record, which were very much in the notice of the AO as he wanted to invoke the provisions of section 154 to rectify the mistake.
M/S. G.N. MOHANTY AND CO. VERSUS ITO, WARD 1 (2), BHUBANESWAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19756 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76624&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not agree with the TPO that ALP is ‘NIL’ and he analysed the management services on benefit test. There is no such method in the TP study. You cannot adopt a method which is not embedded in the study.
ADAMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 1 (3), HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19755 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76619&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
‘Chart’ filed by the assessee alongwith balance sheet, reveals beyond any doubt, that the deduction pertaining to ‘building premises’ was duly disclosed by the assessee in the aforesaid ‘block of assets’.
RASAI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19754 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76618&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee placed on record supporting documentary evidence viz. (i) copies of the returns of the lender companies; (ii) copies of their audited financial statements; (iii) copies of the bank accounts of the lender companies; and (iv) the ‘affidavits’ of the principle officers of the lender companies, wherein they had confirmed the loan transactions.
I.T. O-20 (2) (5) , MUMBAI VERSUS SMT. PRATIMA ASHAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19753 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The cost of acquisition of know-how under development being a self-generated asset is not ascertainable, and hence, no chargeable capital gains would arise.
M/S. BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (1) , MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19752 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the reasons recorded by the AO, it is evident that he has formed reason to believe that income of ₹ 85,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 based on the suggestion of DDIT(Inv.), New Delhi that in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2010-11 is required to be issued to bring to tax the undisclosed income regarding accommodation entry of ₹ 85,00,000/- obtained by the assessee.
M/S LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (5), ALIGARH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19751 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once deduction is granted in the initial Assessment Year, the same would continue for the period of 10 consecutive year unless the relief for initial year is also withdrawn.
Manpasand Beverages Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19750 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 80IB, 263
-
The SPV required to be incorporated for the purpose of domiciling the project and there is no bar on the assessee to execute the work.
Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Transstroy (India) Ltd. Guntur
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19749 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 80IA(4)
-
A flight simulator was an essential part of training imparted to the pilots and crew of aircraft and the hourly quantification of such charges for use of the simulator did not mean that the assessee was hiring the same or making payment for a right to use the same.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19748 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Approval fee by VUDA is in the nature of a contractual levy for rendering services and hence it may not fall under the category of tax, so as to attract the provisions of sec.43B of the Act.
Global Entropolis (vizag) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19747 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 43B
-
Assessee is entitled for benefit of valuing the property on the basis of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the cost of acquisition u/s. 55(2) (a) is not to be taken into account, especially considering that the word land has not been included in the section.
Manish Traders Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19746 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Quashed assessee's self-proclamation for sale of immovable property attached under Schedule II Part III, opining it to be barred by limitation under Rule 68 of schedule II.
Sapana Charudatt Ranadive Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19745 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The law is well settled where the A.O. makes best judgement by estimating the profit. He is required to make independent enquiries, if he is not satisfied with the profit declared by the assessee from the similarly situated assessee.
RAMESH HARI PRASAD CHOUKSE VERSUS JCIT RANGE-2 INBDORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19744 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76611&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The details of Short Term Capital Gains are exhibited elsewhere from which it can be seen that the assessee has purchased shares of six companies on various dates and have sold them on various dates.
MAHESH CHAND GOYAL (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-38 (1), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19743 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76609&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, no defect has been pointed out by the AO in the books of account except doubting the valuation of closing stock. We find the VAT authorities have scrutinized the records and have accepted the purchase, sales and closing stock without any mistake.
MAHASHAKTI ENGINEERING CO., C/O AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-21 (1), NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19742 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76606&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Covenants inserted in the lease deed go to prove that the assessee is not having tenancy right rather he is having ownership of the land which can be mortgaged/sold by him and the property in question can be inherited by his legal heirs also.
MANISH TRADERS VERSUS ITO, WARD 1 (4), GHAZIABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19741 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76604&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court leads credence to the bona fide of the assessee and therefore, the penalty is not exigible under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
SYNDICATE BANK, NGV KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, SYNDICATE BANK, NGV YELHANKA, BANGALORE, SYNDICATE BANK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE 3, BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19740 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76602&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case the assessment was completed accepting the revised returns instead of making the assessment on the basis of the seized material and the evidences collected during the search.
M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19739 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76599&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issuance of jurisdictional notice and the assessment order thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.
Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19738 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.