-
SC - SLP dismissed - HC had held that two Initial Assessment Year is permissible in 80IC for 100 % deduction.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S STOVEKRAFT INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16743 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Amendment made in Section 80AB, inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1st April, 1981 have prospective effect.
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16742 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - It is not clear from the record as to whether the AO has examined the claim for deduction under section 54F and allowed the same after due application of mind - Revision u/s 263 is permissible.
MS. ZEBA SHEREEN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (2) (2), BANGALORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16741 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70690&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where the AO had accepted the assessee’s surrender without any questions being asked, no penalty u/s 271AAA was leviable.
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS DCIT, CC-04 NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16740 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70691&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Show cause notice issued u/s 274 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
SEIKH BONI ISRAIL VERSUS ITO, WARD – 48 (3) KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16739 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Levy of penalty u/s. 271E - When the transactions are not for evasion of tax/concealment of income and bonafide belief of the assessee was that it could have made the payment in cash, penalty is not automatic and the penalty is not valid.
M/S. SATTAR SONS PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16738 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70675&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When it is not discernible from the assessment order as to whether assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed particulars of income so as to apply the deeming provisions contained under Explanation 1 (A) & 1(B) of the Act, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 51 (5), NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. MBIANS INTERNATIONAL INC.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16737 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70696&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since order regarding enhancement of income has been set aside, the very basis on which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied does not survive. Penalty deleted.
SRISHTI RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16736 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70698&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Sec. 80HH deduction is available on gross profits without deducting depreciation and investment allowances.
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16735 (SC) · Section 80HH
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - Sub-section [1A] of Sec. 244A (inserted w.e.f June 1, 2016) not meant to have retrospective effect.
Nima Specific Family Trust Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16734 (SC) · Section 244A(1A)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - 'Factual error' pointed out by Audit party would not constitute objectionable/tangible material for AO to initiate re-assessment.
FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16733 (SC)
-
HC - Non-compete fees paid to employees is revenue in nature.
Max India Limited Vs CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16732 (HC-P&H)
-
HC - Even though valuation report was based on segregated valuation of individual assets, sale of a division by assessee without assigning individual values to any assets would be slump sale.
Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16731 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Where postal endorsements read as “not known” and “abolished”, assessment notices not duly served.
P.N.Krishnakumar Vs THE AGRL.INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16730 (HC-KERALA)
-
ITAT - Allows Revenue's MA as relevant judgment was not available to ITAT at the time of passing order.
Anand Shelters Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16729 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80-IB
-
ITAT - Network rights is a 'goodwill' on which depreciation is allowable.
Apna Incable Broad Band Services Private Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16728 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
S. 147 reopening for bogus share application money: Merely because AO examined the transactions does not preclude him from subsequent inquiry if additional material prime facie shows that disclosures made by assessee were not true. Requirement of true and full disclosure runs through the entire assessment and does not end on filing of return. Reasons have to read as a whole. Mere non recitation of allegation reg failure of full & true disclosure does not invalidate the reasons or the fact that the reasons are based on allegations of lack of true and full particulars
Kalsha Builders Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16727 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 254(2): The conduct of the assessee was speculative. It is not an uninformed litigant. it calculatedly chose not to question the rejection of its cross objection. Instead, waiting for the time till the two members who decided the first ITAT orders were not available and choosing to prefer the rectification application at a convenient time, the assessee no doubt technically was compliant, but stood exposed to the odium of forum shopping. ITAT's MA order reversed with costs of Rs. 1.5 Lakh imposed on the assessee
PCIT vs. N. R. Portfolio
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16726 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254(2)
-
SC - HC's order remanded as it did not contain the reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at a particular conclusion.
Rashtradoot (HUF) Vs Commissioner of Income TaxI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16725 (SC)
-
HC - The existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of convenience are relevant factors while while exercising discretion in stay matters.
Mrs.Kannammal Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16724 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.