-
The order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the DRP is an order reducing the variation proposed in the draft assessment order dated 25.02.2015. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. In any event, the order passed by the DRP was not impugned before the Tribunal rather what was impugned was the assessment order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider on merits whether the said assessment order was justified or not.
M/S. INDIA TRIMMINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 1, COIMBATORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19531 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere nondisclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment.
The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19529 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Since the housing or other activities should be integral part of highway project in order to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4). Therefore, deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to State Corporation undertaking township project is denied.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19522 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 80IA(4)
-
Since a flat is sold by company to a director-shareholder, therefore unpaid price of flat will be taxable as deemed dividend.
Bhagavathy Velan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19515 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When a just claim is put forth by a citizen, the State will not plead limitation to defeat it.
Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19514 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 264
-
S. 40A(9): The provision is not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. Even contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds have to be allowed as a deduction if they are genuine in nature
PCIT vs. State Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19513 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Speculation Loss: Law on when an amendment can be said to be clarificatory/ retrospective explained. The amendment to the Explanation to s. 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 with effect from 1 April 2015 is not clarificatory or retrospective. Consequently, loss occurred to the assessee as a result of its activity of trading in shares (a loss arising from the business of speculation) is not capable of being set off against the profits which it had earned against the business of futures and options since the latter did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business
Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19512 (SC)
-
Since Tribunal is the creation of statute/ Constitution, therefore it has the duty to examine the facts and apply correct law without being influenced by threat of contempt posed by both sides.
Wipro Limited vs. Addl. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19511 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Gem grading services provided by GIA India Lab to Indian affiliate will not be regarded as JV-arrangement. Rejects the constitutional plea of PE.
Gemological Institute of America, Inc Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
For applying provision u/s 56(2)(viib) receipt of share-application money, not share-allotment is relevant.
M/s. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19509 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Allowed Essar Teleholdings' appeal, holding sale of CCDs to related concern which resulted in a STCL of Rs 69.36 crores could not be construed as a colorable device and the loss was a genuine loss.
M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Entire law explained on (i) whether a litigant is bound by concessions of fact and law made by his Counsel/ Authorized representative during the hearing, (ii) tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees or not, (iii) meaning of "control and supervision", (iv) meaning of "master-servant" relationship & (v) when the findings in a judgement can be said to be "perverse" and such that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19501 (SC)
-
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: The allegation that the Co is a penny stock co whose share price has been artificially rigged by promoters/brokers/operators to create non-genuine LTCG is not sufficient. The AO has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic. No specific enquiry or investigation was conducted in the case of the assessee and/or his broker either by the INV Wing or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The penny stock was also not subject to any action from SEBI (Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) distinguished, Fair Invest Ltd 357 ITR 146 (Del) followed)
Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19500 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on Intangible asset: Rights acquired under a non-compete agreement gives enduring benefit & protects the assessee's business against competition. The expression "or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights (Ferromatice Milacron India 99 TM.com 154 (Guj) followed)
PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 32(1)(ii)
-
S. 56(2)(vii)(c): The assessee's purchase of shares of NDTV Ltd at Rs 4 per share from RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd when the market price of the share was Rs 140 is a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii). The argument that as it is a transaction between closely related parties, there is no motive of tax evasion & s. 56 (2) does not apply is not acceptable. The assessee has failed to explain by credible evidence any reason of buying shares of the company at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price was Rs. 140 & so the assessee cannot say that there was no motive of tax evasion. Even otherwise, s. 56 (2) deems such differences/receipts as income
Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19498 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)
-
Bogus F&O Loss: Unusual & sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers was with an intention to evade taxes. In large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications. Thus, client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulations & shall go out of the protection granted by the circulars of NSE/SEBI (Rakesh Gupta 405 ITR 213 (P&H) & Ninja Securities followed)
Time Media & Entertainment LLP vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19497 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus Purchases: The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases. The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases (PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bom HC) followed
V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19496 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 143(1)
-
ITAT - Since playschool is not an integral part of the term 'education', as such registration u/s 12AA is denied to assessee.
Green Educational Society Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19489 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 12AA
-
Depreciation on Assets received by the assessee via transfer will be allowed, even though asset is not physically verifiable.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19488 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Religious trust is is eligible for Sec 11 exemption even though it had filed its tax return belatedly.
Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam & Charities Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19487 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 11
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.