-
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) 18052 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that TDS u/s.194A not applicable on payment of interest by a State owned housing development co. for delayed delivery of plot.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18046 (SC)
-
HC - Expenses incurred by assessee-company on abandoned project relating to setting up of a factory allowable u/s 37(1)
Graviss Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18045 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
ITAT - Capital-gains - Date on letter of allotment of rights in property is relevant date for determining period of holding of the property and not date on sale agreement.
Shri Keyur Hemant Shah Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18044 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Provisions for future expenses relating Lump Sum Turnkey Projects is allowable as reversal of expenditure in future could not deprive the assessee to claim legitimate business expenditure.
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-10(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18043 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Benami Transactions: After amendment, the onus of proving a benami transaction rests entirely on the shoulders of the owner/ benamidar. Before amendment, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Benamidar and beneficial owner. Once both are able to discharge their burden of proof as per amended law, then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Once the burden shits upon the IO, the principles of general law available prior to amendment would apply (Imp judgements referred)
Akashdeep, IO, vs. Manpreet Estates LLP
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18033 (PBPT)
-
If an amount (Dharmada, Charity) is paid at the time of the sale transaction for a purpose other than the price of the goods, it cannot form part of the transaction value. Such payment is not for the transaction of sale and cannot be treated as consideration for the goods. The fact that the payment is compulsory upon purchase does not mean that it is involuntary because the purchaser purchases the goods out of his own volition (All imp judgements referred)
D. J. Malpani vs. CCE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18032 (SC)
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: The judgement in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) is distinguishable on facts & does not apply to a case where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons
Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18031 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
S. 201(1) TDS: The time limit specified in s. 201(3) & (4) for passing orders does not apply to cases where payments are made to non-residents. In cases of payments made to non-residents, an order passed after one year from the end of the FY in which the proceedings were initiated is void ab initio and liable to be quashed
Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18030 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 201(1)
-
ITAT - Assessee has submitted all the documentary evidences to substantiate the purchases so made, under these facts and circumstances, merely making of estimated addition of 15% will not attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c).
SHRI ALOK HALDIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18029 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73455&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since no assessment was pending on the date of search, thus assessment u/s 153A is not permissible solely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and statement recorded u/s 133A.
POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18028 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73457&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Admission of addition evidence - The additional evidence submitted by the assessee have a material bearing to decide the issue. Therefore, the assessee is required to be given a fair chance and opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
MS. MONAZ BURZIN MYSOREWALA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 8 (4) AAYAKARBHAWAN, VADODARA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18027 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73458&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - 'Managerial remuneration' is taxable on 'accrual basis' in the hands of Managing Director in a Company even though the same not received.
Shri V.Ramakrishnan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18023 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Department has virtually prevented the assessee (a senior citizen) from accessing his own funds in the bank accounts which would undisputedly cause great difficulty in meeting his day to day expenses - Grants limited relief to assessee by releasing the bank accounts from attachment while maintaining attachment on two properties.
Darius Sammotashaw Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit 2(4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18022 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Assessee is liable to collect TCS u/s 206C(1C) on toll fee / payment collected from the Concessionaire as 'Toll Concession Agreement' between Punjab-Government & Concessionaire was camouflaged.
Punjab Infrastructure Development Board Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18021 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
ITAT - No prima facie enquiry was conducted by the AO, as contemplated u/s 170 of the Act, for substitution of successor-in-interest, therefore assessment on non-existent entity quashed.
UTV Software Communications Ltd Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 142(2C) Special Audit/ Interpretation of statutes: The AO who has fixed the time in the first instance must necessarily, as an incident of the authority to fix time, be entitled to suo moto extend time without an application by the assessee. The amendment by FA 2008 was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature. There exists a presumption of retrospective application in regard to amendments which are of a procedural nature
CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18019 (SC) · Section 142(2C)
-
S. 147 Reopening: High Court should decide (i) validity of s. 148 notice where assessment is made u/s 143(1) & not u/s 143(3), (ii) whether notice can be said to be based on change of opinion if there is no foundation to form any such opinion, (iii) Whether requirements of s. 148 are satisfied, namely, that it contains the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and furnishes the necessary details for assessing the escaped income and (iv) whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits is legally sustainable
PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18018 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Premium: No reason to interfere. SLP dismissed. High Court held there is no limitation on the amount of premium that can be charged. The AO cannot question the transaction merely because he thinks the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as share premium. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors to decide the premium and it is the wisdom of the shareholder whether they want to subscribe to shares at such a premium or not. S. 68 does not apply as the funds were received through banking channels and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors was established
PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18017 (SC) · Section 68
-
S. 43D Interest on NPAs: Even though the special provision in s. 43D for taxing interest income on NPAs on receipt basis does not apply to NBFCs, it does not mean that NBFCs have to offer interest on bad or doubtful debts to tax on accrual basis. Such interest is not taxable on the real income theory
PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18016 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43D
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.