-
when the provisions of the Sec.2(15) are read with regard to the activities of the assessee it can be said that either by the aims and objective or by the conduct or implementation of the objective of the Trust, it did not qualify for registration u/s 12AA and that the Trust is running with a primary objective of earning the profits.
Jiwan Dass Kartar Singh Charitable Trust Vs The CIT(E)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19280 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 12AA
-
Since the requisite approval for the project on which expenditure was incurred by the Assessee was approved for the period prior and even subsequent to concerned AY. The said condition of approval stood substantially complied with.
TVS Electronics Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19279 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 35(2AB)
-
The power to make Rules or remove difficulties under the provisions of Sections 85 and 86 of the said Act, could only be exercised by the Central Government, once the said Act came into force on the 1st April, 2016, the date expressly stipulated by Parliament in this behalf, and not prior thereto.
Gautam Khaitan Vs Union of India & Ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19278 (HC-DELHI)
-
The ITAT has rightly drawn a distinction between the royalty payments made by the Assessee to the principal during its formative years and those made in subsequent years when the Assessee was fully operational.
Honda Cars India Ltd Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19277 (HC-DELHI)
-
Time taken by the assessee for in pursuing the remedy before HC would stand excluded while computing the time limit for passing the order by Settlement Commission.
AKSHAR BUILDERS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19276 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Once the NAV method has been accepted, what has to be determined is the valuation of the preference shares based on net asset value as on the date of issue of such preference shares. The valuation date thus has to be the date of issuance of preference shares and not as per the last balance sheet date as has been adopted currently.
Ginni Global Private Limited Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19270 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2) (viib)
-
Only because an alternative remedy is not provided and the assessee was compelled to file a writ petition, the Revenue cannot take advantage of it.
Sri Dinakar Ullal Vs The CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19263 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
The online filing of appeal was newly introduced during the year under consideration because of which the assessee had faced difficulty in uploading the appeal electronically in the system.
Atul Ltd Vs THE DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19262 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
If the additional capacity set up is a complete facility in itself, from the first to the last stage of production, i.e., input to output, with no dependence on any process capacities of the existing unit, it is a new Unit.
Komal Paper Mills Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19261 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 80-IB
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed block-assessment u/s. 158BC, on the ground that no formal notice u/s.143(2) was issued to assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Vs DEVENDRANATH G. CHATURVEDI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19260 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
SC - Order denying extension of time-limit for installment payment under IDS, 2016 set aside.
Dal Chandra Rastogi Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19259 (SC)
-
ITAT - Payment towards hiring charges of cranes cannot be brought within the sweep of the definition of the term “work” as envisaged in Sec. 194C.
M/S BHANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO. VERSUS ITO, WARD-1, PHAGWARA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19258 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75107&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) and therefore depreciation is allowable on goodwill. Business undertaking acquired on a going concern basis and the goodwill acquired upon acquiring the business which is nothing but the difference between the consideration paid in excess of the book value of the assets is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii).
M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19257 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75111&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When the assessee has not been given copy of reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 by the AO, entire assessment proceedings and resultant assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/148 was to be quashed.
M/S. DS DOORS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD 1 (2), FARIDABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19256 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75113&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Grant of exemption/approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) - Merely because the assessee printed certain aims and objects as per the requirement of Registrar of Societies would not make out a case for rejection of the application of assessee for approval under the above provision.
AGGARWAL SHIKSHA SAMITI VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19255 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75117&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Transfer of case u/s 127(2)(a) - If the petitioner was really aggrieved by a one-line show-cause notice which did not indicate any reasons for the proposal; the petitioner could have given a one-line reply demanding the reasons to be furnished. If the Department had failed to furnish reasons even thereafter, but proceeded to pass orders, then the same would have been a clear violation of the procedure prescribed u/s 127 (2)(a).
M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, HYDERABAD AND THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19254 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78634&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Though, after Maxopp Investment 402 ITR 640 (SC), even "strategic investments" have to be considered for disallowance, the assessee is entitled to contend that the investments are "legacy" or "one-time" and that there is in fact no expenditure incurred to earn the tax-free income
CIT vs. Alpha G. Corp Development Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19253 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
Natural Justice: The assessee cannot be kept in the dark. Adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes. If the AO intends to use it to draw adverse inference/finding, the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. Failure to do so is a serious flaw which renders the assessment a nullity (All imp judgements referred)
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19252 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: U/s 101 of Evidence Act, 1972, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the LTCG is genuine. The assessee cannot, on failure to establish a prima facie case, take advantage of the weakness in the AO's case. The jump in the share price of a company of unknown credentials cannot be an accident or windfall but is possible because of manipulations in a pre-planned manner by interested broker and entry operators. The LTCG transactions are a sham
Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19251 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
ITAT - Consultancy fee paid to non-resident for the professional services rendered outside India (as export); not taxable in India u/s 9(1)(vii).
Indo Colchem Ltd Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19250 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 9(1) (vii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.