-
A perusal of the bank statement shows that only a part of the deposits and withdrawals have been shown in the regular accounts and the assessee has not disclosed the entire deposits and withdrawals. ITAT find neither the assessee has constructed the house property during the year as claimed nor deposited the long term capital gain of above amount in the specified capital gain accounts scheme.
VIPUL KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 34 (1) NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19596 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76194&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Tribunal has come to a conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in payment of fees to ICICI Ltd. had nothing to do with the expansion of the capital base of the company and that the Assessee had clearly made out a case that it was for restructuring of its loan and was by way of a revenue expenditure.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VERSUS SESA INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19595 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79022&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From a plain reading of the provisions from 115O to 115QA, it is seen that Section 115 O is a charging section on its own.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19594 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's challenge against reopening notice by Hyderabad based AO is refused.
HSBC Holdings PLC Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 and ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19593 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT should take appropriate steps and expedite hearing of appeals which are pending for a long time, especially in cases wherein the appeal has been pending for over 10 years. ITAT is directed to adjudicate the matter at the earliest, preferably within four months from the passing of the order.
NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS ITALIA SPA Vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19592 (HC-DELHI)
-
Sec. 271(1)(c) penalty levy in the hands of assessee-individual (a salaried employee),w.r.t treatment of gains arising on sale of stock appreciation rights(SARs) is deleted.
Shri.Soundarrajan Parthasarathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19591 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Since there was no exempt income whatsoever earned by assessee, therefore there could be no disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A.
Chayadeep Enterprises LLP Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19590 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 14A
-
Sec.271B penalty levy for non-production of audit report by assessee-society is upholded by ITAT.
Peroorkada Service Co- operative Bank Ltd Vs The Income Tax officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19589 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
The appellant had furnished the copies of contract notes, Demat statement, Bank Statement, broker’s ledger. The transactions in listed shares took place through a registered share broker, namely M/s. Sosha Credit Pvt. Ltd. The purchase of shares was acquired through public offer by way of direct subscription in Initial Public offering.
SMT. APARNA MISRA VERSUS ITO, WARD – 23 (4), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19588 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76184&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On perusal of the above Instruction, it is noted that the CBDT had only informed the field officers that a button 'Penny Stock' has been added on their Individual Transaction Screen to display information related to penny stock, including the investigation report of the Kolkata Investigation Directorate.
TANISH DEALERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19587 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76185&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the CIT (A), present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
DCIT, CIRCLE 20 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. PUNJ LLOYD AVIATION PRIVATE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19586 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76187&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
n the instant case, the only circumstance relied on by the respondent in support of the charge levelled against the petitioners is that, even though accused filed the returns, yet, it failed to pay the self-assessment tax along with the returns. This circumstance even if accepted as true, the same does not constitute the offence u/s 276C (2).
M/S. VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1) BANGALORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19585 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79015&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation (2)(iii) and (iv) to Section 115JB of the Act states that for the purposes of Clause (a) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act, the amount of income tax shall include surcharge as levied by the Central Acts from time to time and education cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SCOPE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19584 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79016&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The amendment in Section 32(2) of the Act is applicable from Assessment Year 2002-2003 and subsequent years. It further observed that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an Assessee on 01.04.2002 will be dealt with in accordance with provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as it stood before the said amendment.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S. GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT. LTD., WALUJ AURANGABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19583 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79017&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessment framed after a detailed scrutiny, could not be re-opened beyond 4 years.
DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19582 (SC)
-
Assessee’s SLP challenging 'Forum-shopping' indulgence is dismissed by SC. However, SC sets aside imposition of cost.
N.R. PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19581 (SC)
-
Where only one of the streams of income from the 'source' was granted exemption by the Legislature upon fulfilment of specified conditions, then the concept of 'income' includes 'loss' would not apply.
United Investments Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19580 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10(38)
-
Since assessee itself had deducted TDS u/s. 194IA and therefore, the assessee being a deductor cannot plead inapplicability of the aforesaid provision.
Cornerview Construction & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19579 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 234E
-
S. 143(2) Notice/ Rule 127: There is a difference between "issue" of notice and "service" of notice. Service of notice is a pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Under Rule 127, service at the PAN address is valid even if it is different from the address in the Return. If a notice is issued but is returned unserved by the postal authorities and thereafter no effort is made to serve another notice before the deadline, it shall be deemed to be a case of "non-service" and the assessment order will have to be quashed
Anil Kisanlal Marda vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19578 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 143(2)
-
S. 147/ 148: Even in a case where the return is accepted u/s 143(1) without scrutiny, the fundamental requirement of income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment must be satisfied. Mere non-disclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment. There has to be something beyond an unintentional oversight or error on the part of the assessee in not disclosing such receipt in the return of income. In other words, even after non-disclosure, if the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income. The attempt of further verification would amount to rowing inquiry
The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19577 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 147, 148
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.