-
S. 254(2): The law in CIT vs. Ramesh Electrical Co 203 ITR 497 (Bom) that failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a 'mistake apparent from the record' does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT. The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT
Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd vs. ITAT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16500 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus Sales/ Purchases: If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment, he cannot reopen on the ground that as per N. K. Proteins Ltd 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT the entire amount should have been disallowed as this amounts to change of opinion
Saurabh Suryakant Mehta vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 147 Reopening of S. 143(1) Intimations: The mere fact that the return is processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice. The basic condition precedent of 'reason to believe' applies even to s. 143(1) intimations. If the assessee claims the facts recorded in the reasons are not correct, the order on objection must deal with them. Otherwise an adverse inference can be drawn against the Revenue
Ankita A. Choksey vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16498 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147, 143(1)
-
Law on what constitutes a "fixed place permanent establishment" under Articles 5(1) to 5(3) of India-USA DTAA explained after referring to all judgements and pronouncements from the OCED Commentary and eminent authors
GE Energy Parts Inc vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16497 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): The second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect
PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16496 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
ITAT - Merely because a payment is reflected in AS-26 and is shown to have been made to the assessee, it cannot be brought to tax in his hands when the said money is not received by the assessee.
Yash Corporation Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16484 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT - TOnce the donor has agreed/confirmed that he had given a gift to the assessee, then the same cannot be denied merely on the ground that the Gift Deed was not prepared at the relevant time. No penalty u/s. 271D.
Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16482 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT - Shares were held as stock-in-trade and thereafter it becomes business activity of assessee - These were not investments made by assessee in order to fall within the ambit of Rule 8D (iii).
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-14, NEW DELHI. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16467 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69667&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Amount contributed to the National cooperative Union, New Delhi, is appropriation from the net profits - Not allowed as deduction u/s 37(1).
THE AP MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 5 (1) , HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16466 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69668&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The sum payable to the NRI was not chargeable to income tax in their hands and thus the assessee was not liable for deduction of tax at source on such payment u/s 195 and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could be made.
ACIT, CIRCLE-52 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. GRANT THORNTON
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16465 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69670&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Gain arising on the sale of land whether to be taxed as business income - Specific verification needs to be conducted to verify whether actual intention of the assessee was to procure the land for investment or to sale it at higher profit.
JAGDISH NANDKISHOR KHANDELWAL AND VASANT SHANKAR WALANJ VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (3) AND WARD 8 (4) , PUNE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16464 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69671&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere statement under section 132(4) which was not corroborated by any material evidence, neither such statement would be a conclusive evidence, nor any addition could be made.
B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 16, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16463 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69674&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since both the parties have agreed the payment and receipt of unaccounted money and the assessee has explained the application of unaccounted money towards the source for investment made to various other properties - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed and subsequent retraction has no relevance as it is a valid piece of evidence.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (2) , VIJAYAWADA VERSUS M/S SHUBHADARSI ESTATES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16462 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69661&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Professional fees payment by a partnership firm to its foreign affiliates LLPs for rendering services to assessee’s foreign clients is not taxable in India. TDS u/s. 195 not applicable.
Grant Thornton’s payments to foreign affiliates, non-taxable; ‘Independent Personal Services’ Article applicable to LLPs
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16461 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Explanation 5A below Section 271 of the Act would apply only in case of searched person and cannot be extended to the person other than the searched person.
Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar Vs Pr Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16457 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section Sec. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Agricultural lands are covered under the ambit of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITO Vs Shri Trilok Chand Sain
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16456 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
ITAT - There has been no wilful or intentional delay on part of the assessee in filing appeal before CIT(A) owing to company's demerger. Delay condoned.
Wipro Chandrika Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16455 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
HC - There was legitimate nexus between Investigation Wing report and Income Escapement as such reassessment proceedings upheld.
Avirat Star Homes Venture Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2) and ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16454 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Exemption u/s 10AA will be available to ‘new’ SEZ unit even though assessee earlier availed Sec. 10A benefit.
MACQUARIE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD Vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16453 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10AA, 10A
-
ITAT - FTS under India-France DTAA has to be given a restrictive meaning similar to that of the expression "FTS” appearing in the India-UK DTAA.
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16452 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.