-
Assessee company was entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery which includes office equipment and vehicle, computer, computer software and furniture, fixture used for the purpose of business.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GUJARAT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TECH-CITY CO. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19716 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79294&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Findings recorded by the Tribunal are that AO declines to meet the specific points raised by the assessee in first appellate proceedings, there is obviously no point in challenging the conclusions arrived at in the first appellate proceedings based on vague generalities. No specific issues are raised in appeal before us.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS VAIBHAVLAXMI INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19715 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79295&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of law as proposed by the Revenue is squarely covered by the two decisions which have been referred to by the Tribunal in its impugned order. The principle of law as explained in the two decisions of this Court is that the retrospective amendment to any provision cannot be a ground for making re-assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS ARVIND MILLS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19714 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79297&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Stake money paid by assessee to horse owners for winning of races organized by it, is not liable to TDS under Section 194B or under Section 194BB and thus, assessee should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1).
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19713 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194B / BB
-
Payment received by assessee from Indian counterpart towards provision of IT Support services, doesn't constitute royalty / FTS under the Income-tax Act or under Article 13 of India-France DTAA, absent satisfaction of make- available condition.
Faurecia Automotive Holding Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19712 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Delay in construction due to the fault of the builder / promoter wherein the assessee has no control over the builder/promoter for such delay cannot be attributed to the assesse.
Sri Siva Ramakrishna Mulpuri Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19711 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
S. 4: The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed. Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts. The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant. The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account (All imp judgements referred).
The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19710 (SC) · Section 4
-
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: The decision of the authorities to demand payment of 20% of the disputed demand is in consonance with the department's circulars. There are no extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one imposed by the authorities. The contention that the assessee that he received no consideration and no tax could have been demanded from him is subject matter of the Appeal proceedings and cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal
Kalpana Ashwin Shah vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19709 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section220(6)
-
S. 80IB(10)(a): There shall be stay of judgement in Global Reality 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder
Global Estates vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19708 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)(a)
-
Language employed in Section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under Section 143(3) and the intimation issued under Section 143(1) and therefore, it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words “reason to believe” vis-a-vis Section 143(1) and Section 143(3).
M/S. TENZING MATCH WORKS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19707 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79280&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are finding of facts.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S SHIVHARE ASSOCIATES, SHRI GHANSHYAM RATHORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19706 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79281&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of fact recorded by the two revenue authorities is that the assessee offered the total unaccounted income of ₹ 9.29 Crores for the assessment year 2011-12 in his statement recorded during the search and seizure operation u/s. 132(4) of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT VERSUS VIBHUTI ORGANISERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19705 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79284&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, the notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as the assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT-1 VERSUS GOVIND GOPAL GOYAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19704 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79285&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This Court is of the view that Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers the Search-Cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own procedure. It is not in dispute that on conjoint reading of Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, the candidates with less than 20 years of experience can be short-listed and called for interview.
MONICA ANAND KUMAR, HEMANT GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19703 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79289&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Proviso appended to Section 58[4][f] has to be read as a whole along with the Clauses [a] and [b] therein which would explain the real intendment of the phrase not utilized wholly or partly.
PROF. P.N. SHETTY VERSUS OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, UDUPI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19702 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79290&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the decision in the case of L.VE.Vairavan Chettiar [1965 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the Court found that there was nothing to show that the business had been abandoned and the assessee was continued to incur expenditure and it would come up and the business would be successful. In the said factual background, the Court held that the resultant loss being business loss is deductible.
M/S. MEC INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19701 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79232&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was not a case of complete lack of enquiry on the part of the AO rather the AO has conducted a detailed enquiry on this issue and called for all the relevant records from the bank for the purpose of examining the cost of construction of the hotel building.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA VERSUS M/S OM RUDRA PRIYA HOLIDAY RESORT PVT. LTD., C/O SARDAR CYCLE STORE, BAJARIYA, SAWAI MADHOPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19700 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79233&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Income Tax Act gives a precise definition to the term 'transfer'. Section 2(47)(ii) talks about extinguishment of rights. The Supreme Court, in Sanjeev Lal's case, is very clear that an agreement to sell would extinguish the rights and the same would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47).
KISHORBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19699 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79235&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
What would constitute as being unreasonably high-pitched, obviously differs from case to case.
ANUSHNA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HQRS -1 & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19698 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79237&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether the transactions were bogus or not, cannot be a pure question of fact having regard to the evidence on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS SANDEEP P. SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19697 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79238&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.