-
ITAT - Tax Evasion - Transactions sale of shares of a dubious company, resulting in long term capital gains obtained through brokers are 'sham' and a colourable device - Upholds Sec.69A addition.
Pooja Ajmani Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19189 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 69A
-
ITAT - Sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) not applicable with respect to land purchased by assessee engaged in real estate business, which is part of his stock-in-trade.
Shri Satendra Koushik Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19188 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
ITAT - Excess remuneration to partners pursuant to 'unregistered' supplementary deed is allowable u/s.40(b).
Saxon Fluid Sealing Devices Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19187 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(b)
-
The assessee cannot plead that for all its revenue recognition and cost allowability, it is following the prescribed method of accounting and for the purposes of claim of interest expenditure, it will claim allowance under section 36(1)(iii).
Shri Khatu Shyam Builders Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19186 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
Distance learning provided by assessee-society to the students in its capacity as an authorized learning centre of Punjab Technical University (PTU) would fall within the realm of rendering 'education' as appearing in the charitable activities definition u/s. 2(15), holds Revenue erred in equating such services with that of a coaching institute.
Shaheed Udham Singh Educational Society Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19185 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 2(15)
-
HC - Profit Split Method is the Most Appropriate Method to determine the reasonable allocation of deemed taxable profits in India for NR's TV channel distribution revenue.
Commissioner of IncomeTax (IT)4 Vs M/s Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19184 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
SC - HC failed to frame the substantial question of law as per Sec.260A(3).
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxC1 & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19183 (SC)
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - There was no reason for the Assessing Authority for not affording an opportunity to the Assessee to established the exemptions of Rule 6DD - Matter remanded.
MRS. R. THIRUVENGADAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, PONDICHERRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19182 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78556&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Non recording of finding of facts - Order not recording finding of facts is perverse and give rise to a substantial question of law.
CIT, CENTRAL II VERSUS CHURAMANI HOUSING (P) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19181 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78557&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Error of TDS mismatch in the computer system - The computer system cannot override the factual aspects. If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence. Department shall take steps to rectify the error of TDS mismatch in the computer system.
M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19180 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78558&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Allowability of bad debts - Assessee had entered into a commercial venture by booking commercial space with a developer in the upcoming construction of commercial building, the payment being in the advance booking. The sum was not refunded. This was thus clearly a business loss.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19179 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78560&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 40A(2) - Apart from the administrative service expenditure from sister concern as per agreement being motivated by business decision, there is no element of transfer of profit, particularly when it is pointed out that the payee had also paid cash at the tax rate as that of the Assessee. - No addition
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE. VERSUS M/S. TATA TOYO RADIATOR PVT. LTD., PUNE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19178 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78561&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The computer system cannot override the factual aspects, If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19176 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The said order seems to be a cut and paste order, taking pieces from here and there and as if quoting some of the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts would be enough for the final fact finding body.
Sri K.Devakar Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19175 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 115JB (pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012) is not applicable to a banking company (also insurance & electricity cos) . The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company. When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails. The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively (Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 (Ker) followed)
CIT vs. Union Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19167 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 115JB
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: Though s. 50C is a deeming provision and the AO is obliged to compute the capital gains by taking the valuation arrived at by the DVO in place of the actual consideration received by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the DVO's valuation before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing
Lovy Ranka vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19166 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: Law on how to determine the "FMV" (Fair Market Value) of shares issued by a closely held company explained. The fact that the company is loss-making does not mean that shares cannot be allotted at premium. The DCF method is a recognised method though it is not an exact science & can never be done with arithmetic precision. The fact that future projections of various factors made by applying hindsight view cannot be matched with actual performance does not mean that the DCF method is not correct
India Today Online Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19149 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 260A: The High Court cannot hear the appeal bipartite without framing any substantial question of law. It should either dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question or hear the parties after framing a question (see also PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (SC)
PCIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19148 (SC) · Section 260A
-
S. 43B: The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to "actual payment" of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to s. 43B (Eicher Motors 315 ITR 312 (MP) & Pennar Profiles (T&AP) approved)
CIT vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19147 (SC) · Section 43B
-
S. 260A: Dept directed to "bonafide apply mind" before filing appeals to the High Court. Concern & anguish expressed at the tendency of the Dept to file unnecessary appeals even though the issues are ex facie covered by decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Supreme Court. CBDT & Ministry of Finance directed to take needful action
PCIT vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19146 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 260A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.