-
From the records it can be seen that it is an undisputed fact that the subject property was being used as residential house by the assessee from the period of its purchase on 09.08.2007 to the date of handing over its vacant possession to the builder for re-development and construction vide collaboration agreement dated 18.04.2012.
DCIT CIRCLE 3 (1) (2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI VERSUS SMT. MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19636 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76335&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that both in the first order of rejection dated 24.06.2013 and second order of rejection dated 06.05.2016. The only reason assigned by the CCIT is by stating that the trust deed does not specifically mention that the educational institution established by it, is not running for the purpose of profit.
M/S PKD TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (2) /WARD 1 (1), POLLACHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19635 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79120&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there was no allegation made against the assessee that the statement given by the assessee was either mala fide or lacks bona fide. There is no allegation against the assessee that he suppressed information to the Department with an intent to evade payment of tax. The details called for by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings were culled out from the books of the assessee.
SHRI KAMAL BASHA VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19634 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79123&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
DVO having complete knowledge of the unsigned agreement, which was much lesser than the total amount that was revealed from the two agreements found. It was noted by the ITAT that presumption could only be made under Section 132 (4A) and that too was rebuttable.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 VERSUS BRIJ MOHAN MAHAJAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19633 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79127&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the context of income tax concession, in para 2.1 of the said scheme, the reference was made to the Department’s letter dated 15.2.2012 stating that the company had not quantified its tax liability in the projected statement and that the reliefs sought by the company can be considered only after the details are received from the company.
OLYMPIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19632 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79129&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that Section 14A of the Act can be invoked only if the assessee seeks to square off the expenditure against the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, and in such circumstances, Section 14A of the Act could not have been invoked, more particularly, when no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment years.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS GREENLAND INFRACON P. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19631 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79131&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Unless a specific provision is made in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in as much as penalty is concerned, the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act shall continue to apply.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19630 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Assessee's stand that the transactions with the sister-concerns were genuine and at arm's length, and the mere fact that these entities were operating from the same premises cannot lead to the inference that the transactions were collusive is disallowed.
RPK Warehousing Pvt Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19629 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Tribunal holds that there is no clarity as to how the computation of depreciation has been made and it opined that the quantum of depreciation allowable to the assessee for the impugned assessment years requires a re-visit by the Assessing Officer.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, TUTICORIN. VERSUS M/S. V.O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19628 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79095&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer correctly after examining the facts of the case, found that the income earned from AMC (Annual Maintenance Charges of ATM), installation and technical charges, consultation charges and licence fee of software do not constitute income from the industrial undertaking which was established in Pondicherry, since this was not derived from the industrial undertaking, as the men, material and machinery of the Pondicherry industrial undertaking were not used to earn income and therefore, denied deduction under Section 80IA.
M/S. DIEBOLD SYSTEMS P. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I (4), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19627 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79096&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, the case on hand is not a case of survey, but it is a case where the assessee having come to know about the same, after the Assessing Officer pointed it out, immediately filed petition for rectification u/s 154 along with explanation stating that it is an inadvertent error.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. CELEBRITY FASHIONS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19626 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79098&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As Revenue conceded before it that the addition had been made in the hands of the representative bank account holders to which the amount deposited would be made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holders of the accounts.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS AMITKUMAR T PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19625 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79099&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Necessary details were called for by the authority concerned in connection with the assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) . In response to such notice, the writ applicant had furnished complete details as indicated from various documentary evidence on record.
JARUN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19624 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79101&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner was informed that the refund cannot be issued in view of Section 143(1D), since notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is already issued. A reference is also made to a draft assessment order for the year under consideration, which if ultimately finalized would give rise to a tax demand from the Petitioner instead of department paying refund.
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19623 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79102&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Taxability of ESOP-shares settlement.
Vernan Trust Vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19622 (SC)
-
In case of sale of FSI/TDR rights by the assessee to the developers which have accrued in favour of the assessee following promulgation of Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai, 1991 and the said developmental right were generated by the plot itself and there is no cost of acquisition and therefore not liable for any capital gain tax.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25 (2) (3), MUMBAI VERSUS MR. DEEPAK TALAKSHI SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19621 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76271&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the details were culled out from the books maintained by the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, did not offer convincing explanation before the AO, but raised a plea before the Tribunal that they are willing to produce all the names of their customers as well as their workers who can be examined. Tribunal was convinced with the stand taken by the assessee and therefore, granted an opportunity to the assessee to do so and called for a remand report.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III, MADRAS. VERSUS SHRI S.V. SREENIVASAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19620 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79088&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a reading of the assessment order dated 17.03.2015, it is evidently clear that books of accounts and all the details were furnished to the AOr which was perused by the AO and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. ANUGRAHA VALVE CASTINGS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19619 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79086&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the Assessment Order, the orders passed by CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that the two Authorities below and the Tribunal, proceeded on the legal principle without making an in-depth study on the facts situation.
M/S. INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 2 (2), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19618 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79085&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a litigant raises a legal issue before a court or a tribunal as a principal ground of challenge and without prejudice and not in derogation with the said plea, the litigant is also entitled to raise alternate submissions.
M/S. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD II (5), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19617 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79090&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.