-
Once the action is held in accordance with law and especially in tax matters, the question of invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution does not arise.
Prashanti Medical Services &Research Foundation Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19737 (SC) · Section 35AC
-
We are of the considered view that when undisputedly assessee has entered into transaction of derivatives after 01.04.2006 in a recognised stock exchange as per Circular No.2/2006 dated 25.01.2006, loss arising in F&O transaction has to be treated as business loss and not loss in speculative business.
DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. FLORA AND FAUNA HOUSING AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19735 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76570&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Undisputedly, originally assessment in this case was framed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that AO has initially issued a notice u/s 154/155 of the Act, available at pages 1 & 2 of the paper book, but when assessment record was perused in the open court, there is neither any order sheet nor final order, if any, passed consequent upon the notice issued u/s 154.
M/S. CHAND INDUSTRY VERSUS ITO, WARD II (2), FARIDABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19734 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The embezzlement by one of the Directors or an employee of the business of the Assessee Company during the ordinary course of business can be a business loss of the Assessee irrespective of criminal prosecution of the accused director/employee of the Company.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. SARAVANA SELVARATHNAM TRADING & MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19733 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79318&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find some force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue. Since the Appellant died and his legal representatives are not available to argue the present Appeal or to engage a Counsel to appear in the matter, we dismiss the present Appeal as having abated with a liberty to the legal representatives to revive the said Appeal with proper Application in case, they consider it appropriate.
K.Y. GAITONDE VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY CIRCLE VII (1) CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19732 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79319&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, we find that on objections being filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections and passed an order on 10.11.2017. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the validity of the reopening and not rejected the appeal on the ground that the authorized representative of the assessee participated in response to the notice issued u/s 148.
SMT. NEETAA SUNEEL SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19731 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79320&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even for the purposes of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 275(1)(a) the limitation begins to run from the date of the order of the ITAT was served upon the CIT (Judicial).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19730 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79323&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive with regard to liability to tax when it is shown that the taxable event had in fact not taken place or was given up or abandoned.
Avestagenome Project International Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19729 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
HC ought not to have interfered with ITAT's order as no substantial question of law arose therefrom. SC thus allowed assessee's appeal and set aside the HC order and reinstated ITAT order.
PURSHOTTAM KHATRI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19728 (SC)
-
Once arm's length principle has been satisfied, there can be no further profit attributable to a person even if it has a PE in India.
Honda Motors Co. Ltd Vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19727 (SC)
-
Evidently the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.2008 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed.
SHRI RAJAN R SRINIVASAN VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET-AX, CIRCLE 1 (2) (1), BENGALURU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19726 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76552&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In our considered view, there are only two methods of dealing such a situation. Firstly, if the decision is per incurium, a finding to the said effect has to be given. Secondly, the Court or the Tribunal can refuse to follow the decision by distinguishing it on the factual matrix.
SARVODAYA MUTUAL BENEFIT TRUST, THELLAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19725 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79308&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this appeal, we are concerned about the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, the circular of the CBDT dated 09.10.1984, should not have been applied, as by then the statutory direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 31.01.1998 was in vogue and held the field.
THE KUMBAKONAM MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19724 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79309&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a particular article would fall within the description by the force of the words used, it is impermissible to ignore the word 'description' and going by the usage of the equipment purchased by the assessee, a decision has to be arrived at.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19723 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79310&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The plain reading of Rule 83 makes it clear that the tax Recovery Officer or other officer, acting under the provisions of Schedule-II, are conferred with the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit for the purpose of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
MAULIKKUMAR VINODKUMAR PATEL VERSUS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19722 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79312&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time, the AO simply disallowed the above amount. This is despite the return being scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 VERSUS M/S. ALBASTA WHOLESALE SERVICES LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19721 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79313&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The payment of success fee was the obligation of the share-holders and since the company had discharged the same, AO had made addition u/s. 2(24)(iv) [with respect to the benefit derived by assessee-director] for the proportionate amount of payment made by the company.
Sri Danda Brahmanandam Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19720 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
Four years timeframe for completion of project, by no standards, can be said to be unreasonable, harsh, absurd or incapable of compliance.
Global Estates Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19719 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)
-
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Lt held in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, Ernakulam has recently taken note of all the earlier decisions including the decisions, which have been referred to by the Tribunal and the CIT(A) and held in favour of the Revenue.
KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19718 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79292&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no application of section 14A as far as the deduction under section 80A to 80U under Chapter VIA of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX VERSUS SURAT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19717 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79293&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.