-
ITAT - Salary received by individual in his NRE A/c in India for services rendered in Nigeria is not taxable in India on receipt basis u/s. 5(2) despite services rendered outside India.
Deepak Kumar Todis Vs DDIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19125 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s. 194-I on wharfage charges payment to the Maharashtra Maritime Board as the same is not akin to 'rent'.
Angre Port (P) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19124 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Addition to excess stock of gold jewellery cannot be made as there was no enquiry of department to find out the correctness of the bill as either bogus or fake.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS M/S HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19123 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Non-consideration of binding judicial precedent of High Court would constitute mistake apparent from record u/s 254.
M/S. AKM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-5 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19122 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 250: The CBDT is empowered to lay down broad guidelines for disposal of appeals by CsIT(A). However, it cannot offer 'incentives' to CsIT(A) for making enhancement and levying penalty. Such policy transgresses the exercise of quasi-judicial powers & is wholly impermissible and invalid u/s 119. The 'Incentives' have the propensity to influence the CsIT(A) and they will be tempted to pass an order in a particular manner so as to achieve a greater target of disposal
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19109 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
S. 68/69 Bogus Purchases: Even if the purchases are bogus, the entire purchase amount cannot be added. As the department had not disputed the assessee's sales & there was no discrepancy between the purchases and the sales, the purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trader. The addition has to be restricted to the extent of the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases (N.K .Industries 292 CTR 354 (Guj), N. K. Proteins 250 TM 22 (SC) distinguished)
PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19108 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68/69
-
S. 44BB: Amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by ONGC (service recipient), representing service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act (Mitchell Drilling International 380 ITR 130 (Del), CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dt 28.04.2008 & Circular No. 1/2014 dt 13.01.2014 followed)
DIT (IT) vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19107 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section 44BB
-
HC - Mortgage discharge in connection with property sale is not diversion at source but only application of income, therefore no deduction u/s. 48.
D.Zeenath Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19091 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 48
-
S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)
Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19083 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
S. 260A: There is a distinction between questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal (u/s 260¬A(2)(c)) and the questions framed by the Court (u/s 260¬A(3)). The High Court has to formulate substantial question of law and only thereafter hear the appeal on merits. If the High Court is of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it should record a categorical finding to that effect & dismiss the appeal in limine. However, it cannot, without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law, issue notice to the respondent, hear both parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismiss it. This is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure prescribed in s. 260¬A
PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19082 (SC) · Section 260A
-
S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)
Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19081 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147, 148
-
HC - Reassessment u/s 147 -Department had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. - Notice u/s 148 is set aside
RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (4), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18075 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77388&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Receipt of bonus share - Shares given by company in proportion to the holding of equity capital by shareholders would, in the absence of express provision to be contrary be treated as capital and not income. AO has merely proceeded on the basis that the origin of the bonus shares being the shares held by the assessee by way of stock-in-trade, necessarily the bonus shares would also partake the same character.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 4 VERSUS M/S. ASHOK APPARELS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18074 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77389&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 as concerned employee was in the employment of the assessee and not of the US based company contrary to what the department contends.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX27 VERSUS SMT. SUPRIYA SUHAS JOSHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18073 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Preliminary steps towards the fulfillment of its purpose e.g. key personnel appointments, indicates that assessee had set up its business - Deduction u/s. 37 available.
Indian Railway Stations Development Corporation Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18061 (HC-DELHI)
-
Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)
P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18060 (SC)
-
ITAT - Reopening of assessment - No merit in the assessment so framed U/s 143(3) without issue of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. Main ground of reassessment being null and void in absence of issue of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act and also issue of notice U/s 148 without proper sanction U/s 151(2).
I.T.O., WARD 3 (1), JAIPUR. VERSUS SHRI HANS RAJ SHARMA AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18059 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73542&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005.
MANJEET KUMAR HUF PROP. RAWALPINDI JEWELLERS C/O. MANOJ MITTAL, ADVOCATE VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE- KARNAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18058 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Commencement of business - The petitioner’s activity, which it claims to be preliminary steps towards the fulfillment of the purpose, which is embodied in the MoU clearly indicates that it had set up its business and that these steps were for the ultimate fulfillment of its purposes, which was the preparation of development plans leading to the projects. - Expenses duly allowable.
INDIAN RAILWAY STATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18057 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77303&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: The assessee cannot avoid the impact of s. 50C by claiming that his s. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation. Such interpretation renders s. 50C redundant
Jagdish C. Dhabalia vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18053 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.