-
Condonation of abnormal delay of 1371 days in removing office objections: High Court refused to condone delay and held that Dept must "set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest". The Supreme Court reversed this holding High Court ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal. Dept to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh (from taxpayers' funds) for condonation of delay
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16057 (SC)
-
S. 69A Black Money: If the assessee is a discretionary beneficiary of the HSBC Bank Account and is not the owner, addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained. In the case of a discretionary trust, the income of the trust cannot be added in the hands of the beneficiary. The trustees are the representative assessees who are liable to be taxed for the income of the trust (All judgements considered)
Deepak B Shah vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16056 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69A
-
ITAT - One time receipts/awards by cricketer are exempt under CBDT Circular
Mr. Chandrakant Gulabrao Borde Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16051 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Municipal taxes pertaining to years when company was not the owner is allowable deduction while calculating Annual Let Out Value.
Technomark Television Network Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16050 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for capital gains not disclosed by assessee on switch over of investment from one Mutual Fund scheme to another.
Kamalesh Basu Vs CIT(A)-XVI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16049 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Despite details regarding nature and backdrop of receipt being available, AO did not examine the taxability of income component of the disbursement from the family trust. No addition u/s 69.
Pratibha Pankaj Patel Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16048 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 69
-
HC - Real income theory upheld - No addition towards interest due on NPA of co-operative bank even prior to Sec 43D amendment.
Ludhiana Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16042 (HC-P&H)
-
HC - Failure to consider trust's application for registration within 6 months would be treated as deemed grant of registration and to be effective from date of expiry of 6 months from application date.
TBI EDUCATION TRUST Vs THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16041 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Payment to the Austrian company for design of cylinder for improvement of fuel efficiency is not royalty, but FTS and taxable only in Austria, as per provisions of India-Austria DTAA.
TVS Motors Co Ltd Vs The Director of International Taxation
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16040 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 90(2): If a non-resident assessee derives income from multiple sources in India, it is entitled to adopt the provisions of the Act for one source and the DTAA for the other source, whichever is more beneficial to it, even though the payer is common for both sources
Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16039 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 90(2)
-
S. 68 Bogus share premium: The AO cannot assess the share premium as income on the ground that it is "excessive". The share premium worked out in the Valuation Certificate is the minimum amount that can be collected by the assessee under RBI regulations. There is no bar on collecting higher amount as share premium. There are several factors that are taken into consideration while issuing the equity shares to shareholders/investors, such as Venture capital funds and Private Equity funds. The premium is determined between the parties on the basis of commercial considerations and cannot be questioned by the tax authorities. The AO is not entitled to sit on the arm chair of a businessman and regulate the manner of conducting business (All judgements considered)
DCIT vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16038 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
HC - Rights to enjoy lease income was a camouflage to divert income under a revocable transfer. Taxable u/s 60 in transferor’s hands.
Ambience Developers Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16030 (HC-DELHI) · Section 60
-
HC - Employees' contribution to PF / ESI deposited beyond respective due date but before due date of filing ROI is not allowable deduction.
M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporation Circle 3(2)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16029 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - Assessee was in receipt of huge ‘capitation fees’ in cash over and above the regular course fees and hostel fees which were not recorded in the books of accounts; Cancels charitable registration.
Indian Medical Trust Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16015 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
ITAT - Payment made by an Indian company towards web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC, USA is not a royalty under India – US DTAA. No TDS u/s 195.
EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16013 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 on commission to non-resident agents for procuring export orders even though some sale happened in India
Ferromatic Milacron India Pvt Ltd Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16012 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 195
-
S. 254/ 36(1)(vii): If the AO has failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry, it is the obligation of the ITAT to ensure that effective inquiry is carried out. The AO has not examined the crucial aspect whether the bad debts claimed by the assessee due to the NSEL scam constitutes a "speculative transaction" u/s 43(5) and whether Explanation to s. 73(1) applies
Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16011 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 36(1)(vii), 254
-
S. 220(6)/ 246: The AO is not justified in insisting on payment of 20% of the demand based on CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). This approach may defeat & frustrate the right of the assessee to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal. Such can never be the mandate of law
Bhupendra Murji Shah vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16010 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 220(6), 246
-
Transfer Pricing: The categorical finding of fact by the ITAT that a comparable (Motilal Oswal) is engaged in a qualitatively different and diversified business than that of the assessee cannot be challenged as a substantial question of law as the finding is not perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record
PCIT vs. NVP Venture Capital India Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15985 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 254(2): We are at a loss to understand why the ITAT has not communicated a date of hearing of the Miscellaneous Application (MA). The ITAT should give priority to the hearing of MAs. It should assign specific dates of hearing and inform parties well in advance. The ITAT should set right the lapses and put its house in order. None should be compelled to move the High Court and seek an out of turn hearing
Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15984 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.