-
To be noted that the power under Section 254(2) of the Act is a power given to rectify errors. The scope of the said power is no longer res integra and by now, is well settled.
DAIMLER INDIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19676 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79204&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mode of computation/form of subsidy is irrelevant. The mode of giving incentive is re-imbursement of energy charges. The nature of subsidy depends on the purpose for which it is given. Hence the assessee draws support from the decisions already discussed earlier as the same principle will apply here.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – 2, KOLKATA VERSUS ANKIT METAL AND POWER LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19675 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79205&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is true that there was no direct focus of the Court on whether subscriptions so received are capital or revenue in nature, we may still advert to the fact that this Court has also, on general principles, held that such subscriptions would be capital receipts, and if they were treated to be income, this would violate the Companies Act.
THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19674 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79207&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The proper remedy of the petitioner-assessee would be to raise all pleas before the AO in assessment proceedings and if it is decided against him then to carry the issue further in appeal to CIT (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal in second appeal and then to the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, if the occasion so arises in appeal.
MURLIBHAI FATANDAS SAWLANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19673 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79208&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The expression 'assessment' can also mean the procedures laid down in the Act, if the context so requires; and, qua Sec. 170 of the Act, the word 'assessment' has to be understood as procedure laid down therein.
FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Private Limited (‘FETSCS’) Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19672 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The buyback of shares would not in any manner enhance the capital structure of the assessee company and thus there is no increase in capital base of the company.
BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19671 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
The act of filing the returns by itself cannot be construed as an attempt to evade tax, rather the submission of the returns would suggest that assessee had voluntarily declared his intention to pay tax.
Vyalikaval House Building Co Operative Society Ltd Vs The Income Tax Department By Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19670 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
e find that this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2013-14 had held the loans received from aforesaid parties to be genuine and deleted the additions made u/s 68.
SHREE LAXMI ESTATE PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 15 (3) (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19669 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76389&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When an authority has decided on the basis of a decision of the High Court which is subsequently reversed, there would be a rectifiable mistake coming within the section 154.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5. VERSUS M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., M/S. PERINGOTTUKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., M/S. VADAKKENCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19668 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76396&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As revised contract value which would require incurring of substantial amount towards cost. Therefore, it would not be possible to assessee to earn income of ₹ 297.18 crores in assessment year under appeal as is computed by the A.O. in the assessment order.
L & T SUCG JV JV CC 27 VERSUS THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-62, DELHI., THE DCIT, CIRCLE – 62 (1) (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19667 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76391&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the prime object of the assessee was to let out the portion of the property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture & fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being paid, the income derived therefrom would be assessable under the head “house property”.
DEVBHUMI ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-2 (1) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19666 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a reading of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii), fees for technical services means consideration, including lumpsum consideration for rendering any managerial, technical or consultancy services.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, CHENNAI-34 VERSUS M/S. MPS LTD., CHENNAI-32
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19665 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79200&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No doubt in the present case, AO has applied for such approval which was granted on 29.03.2014, but before grant of approval, the AO has already issued notice on 28.03.2014 which is without any jurisdiction.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT 2 VERSUS ASHOKBHAI JAIN PROP. OF SUPER JEWELS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19664 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79202&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The power to confiscate and consequent forfeiture of rights or interests are drastic being penal in nature, and therefore, such statutes are to be read very strictly.
Niharika Jain Vs Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19663 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Intimation u/s143(3) could not be treated as an order and hence petition u/s 264 was not maintainable for such intimation.
Epcos Electronic Components S A Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19662 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264
-
The benefit which accrued to the assessee not only in the AY under consideration, but also the earlier AY has been taken away by the Tribunal.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P) Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19661 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Prosecution u/s 276C for tax evasion: If the assessee's appeal against levy of s. 271(1)(c) penalty for concealment of income is allowed & has become final, the quashing of prosecution is automatic. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution and not indulge in the empty formality of directing the assessee to approach the trial Magistrate (K. C. Builders 265 ITR 562 (SC) followed)
System India Castings vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19660 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · Sections 271(1)(c), 276C
-
S. 254(2) MA: If an appeal against the order of the ITAT has been filed in the High Court and the same has been admitted by the High Court, a Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) seeking rectification and recall of the order is not maintainable. The MA is maintainable only if the appeal is pending and has not been admitted (RW Promotions 376 ITR 126 (Bom) distinguished, Muni Seva Ashram 38 TM.com 110 (Guj) followed)
Ratanlal C. Bafna vs. JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19659 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 254(2)
-
When a claim was processed at length after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, and the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment.
ROYAL INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2) (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19658 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79189&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings recorded by the appellate tribunal that the assessee submitted report of registered valuer vide dated 23.09.2013 during assessment proceedings and the value adopted by the registered valuer was ₹ 99/per sq.mt. from the assessment order, it is also discernable that the AO has completely ignore the report of the registered valuer and without any discussion thereon estimated the cost at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any reasonable basis and justified reasoning.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS JIGNESH BHAGWANDAS PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19657 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79192&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.