-
HC - Power of Tribunal to dismiss the Appeals for want of prosecution - Tribunal seems to have been contended by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution only and not touching the merits of the case at all and then further erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition filed for recalling the ex parte order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
SMT. RITHA SABAPATHY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18015 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77248&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Addition u/s 69C - Amount had not been expended by the assessee but was merely routed through the assessee, the question of debiting such amount to the profit and loss account did not arise.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VERSUS HINA ABHAY VASAVADA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18014 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77249&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Admission made by the Assessee in the statements recorded u/s 132 (4) was merely to the extent of payment of Capitation Fee and nothing about the source of such payment was disclosed, it does not mean that it could result in an addition ipso facto as Undisclosed Income without the corroborating material.
SHRI R. BHOOPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18013 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77252&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D of the Act of any amount is not permissible (Essar Teleholdings 401 ITR 445 (SC) followed, Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) approved)
PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17997 (SC) · Section 14A
-
S. 220(6)/ 281B Tax Recovery: Dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue. They should apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as binding decisions. The petitioner is being singled out for unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment
Milestone Real Estate Fund vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17996 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 220(6)/ 281B
-
S. 194H TDS: Payment gateway charges paid to a bank for swiping credit cards are in the nature of fees for banking services and not "commission" or "brokerage". Accordingly, no TDS is deductible from the said charges u/s 194H and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made (JDS Apparels 370 ITR 454 (Del) followed)
PCIT vs. Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17995 (HC-DELHI) · Section 194H
-
Articles 136, 141: Entire law on legal effect of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by a speaking/ non-speaking order explained. If the dismissal is by a speaking order & reasons are given, the same is a declaration of law which is binding under Article 141. The findings are also binding by way of judicial discipline. However, this does not mean that the order of the lower court has merged in the dismissal order of the Supreme Court
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17994 (SC)
-
S. 254(2)/ 271(1)(c): Though the High Court faulted the Tribunal's decision of reducing the penalty as a "way to bypass the minimum limit" and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
ITO vs. Devendra J Kothari
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17993 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 254(2)/ 271(1)(c)
-
S. 45(4): The revaluation of asset being land held by the partnership firm which results into enhancement of value of asset and this enhanced amount credited in capital account of partners and when a retiring partner takes amount in his capital account including enhanced value of asset, it does not give rise to Capital Gain under section 45(4) r.w. Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act
D.S. Corporation vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17973 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 45(4)
-
ITAT - Date of acquisition for computation of LTCG - Since allotment is not a conditional allotment and do not envisages cancellation of the allotted property, then the assessee has acquired right in a specific property on date of allotment - Subsequently, agreement of sale has been executed by the builder in assessee’s favor which was nothing but mere improvement in assessee’s existing rights to acquire a specific property and part & parcel of the same transaction.
ACIT-25 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17972 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40A(2) - Professional and fair conduct in earlier years should have been appreciated and not frowned to be treated as a ground to disallow fair and genuine payment under Section 40A(2)(a) read with Clause (b) of the Act. A provision which requires a just and fair approach by the assessee must be interpreted and applied in a just and fair manner by the authorities.
SIGMA RESEARCH & CONSULTING PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17971 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77179&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No challenge of reassessment in first round in clear terms before the authorities below is fatal and cannot be permitted to raise subsequently as an after-thought.
M/S. VIGNESWAR TEX VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (3), TIRUPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17970 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77180&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Penalty u/s 271D - The mere proof that the loans were repaid through cheques drawn in the name of the lenders or that there was no attempt to induct black money into the business, itself cannot be considered as a reasonable cause or as a compelling circumstance under which the mandate of Section 269SS can be violated.
LISTIN STEPHEN VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17969 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77181&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Substantial question of law - The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee being accepted by the Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribunal can be held to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises.
M/S. AMUTHAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COIMBATORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17968 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77184&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Sec. 50C would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset - Sec. 43CA was inserted w.e.f 1.4.2014 and was not applicable for AY prior to this date.
Zain Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer -18(3)(5) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17967 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 43CA
-
ITAT - Reimbursements of salary and other costs on seconded employees to Foreign Group Co. constitutes FTS u/s.9(1)(vii), TDS u/s 195 applicable.
TS-171-ITAT-2019(CHNY)-Nippon_Paint__India__Pvt.Ltd_
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17966 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 249(4): The power conferred upon the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal is to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers. He has the power and corresponding duty to exercise the power when circumstances so warrant. U/s 14 of the Limitation Act, delay caused due to proceeding in a wrong forum has to be condoned. Article 2(1) of the India-UAE DTAA provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge & is also covered by the definition of taxes
R.A.K. Ceramics vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17965 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 249(4)
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: It is intriguing is that the company had meagre resources and reported consistent losses. The astronomical growth of the value of company’s shares naturally excited the suspicions of the Revenue. The company was even directed to be delisted from the stock exchange. The assessee’s argument that he was denied the right to cross-examine the individuals whose statements led to the inquiry and ultimate disallowance of the long term capital gain claim is not relevant in the wake of findings of fact
Udit Kalra vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17964 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
S. 45(4): If new partners come into the partnership and bring cash by way of capital contribution and the retiring partners take cash and retire, the retiring partners are not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquish is their share in the partnership. As there is no transfer of a capital asset, no capital gains or profit can arise & s. 45(4) has no application (A. N. Naik 265 ITR 346 (Bom) distinguished, Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Karn) [FB] followed)
PCIT vs. Electroplast Engineers
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17963 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 45(4)
-
HC - Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and cannot be cured u/s 292BB.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS MARCK BIOSCIENCES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17962 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77169&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.