-
ITAT - Since assessee was maintaining separate portfolio of scrips as investment and stock-in-trade, claim of long term capital gains with respect to gains arising on sale of certain scrips held as investment allowed.
Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15707 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Where appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by the co- ordinate bench, Sec. 271(1)(c) penalty not valid (since the issue is ‘debatable’).
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15706 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - The doctrine of res judicata cannot be picked up and abused to shelter any and every wrong doing of the state.
KRANTI DEVI VERSUS ITO – 1 (2), RAMPUR
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15705 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66733&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Even in case of expenditure not fully supported by the relevant supporting documentary evidence and making it unverifiable, the same cannot be entirely disallowed keeping in view the nature of the assessee’s business. It would be fair and reasonable to disallow the said expenditure to the extent of 50% for the unverifiable element involved therein.
SMT. INDU MAHESH SHAH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35 (2), KOLKATA
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15704 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66740&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) for failure to deliver or cause to deliver a copy of the statement (e-TDS return and e-TCS return) within the time since assessee had a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Law.
M/S. HARYANA DISTILLERY LIMITED VERSUS THE JCIT, TDS RANGE, KARNAL
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15703 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66747&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Tribunal should not have remanded the matter back as the entire material was before the authorities to examine PE constitution.
Co-operative Centrale Reiffeisen- Boerenleenbank B. A Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15702 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - CBDT had taken a view that transaction of derivative contract being settled by physical delivery of shares is not any different from transaction in equity shares settled by actual delivery of shares and that the rates of STT as applicable to delivery based equity transactions shall also be applicable to such derivative transaction.
Association of National Exchanges Members of India Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15701 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Assessee’s claim of refund of entire tax paid in view of block assessment annulment is not valid.
Dr.Thirupathy Reddy (HUF) Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15700 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - No addition of notional income u/s. 23 with respect to assessee-builder’s unsold flats lying vacant for AY 2009-10.
Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15694 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 23
-
HC - Sec. 80IA deduction available on interest earned on FD kept with the bank as margin money for taking ‘foreign Letter of Credit’.
Arul Mariammal Textiles Ltd vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15693 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 80-IA
-
S. 56(2)(viib), 68, 147 Bogus share capital/ premium: Entire law on whether alleged excessive premium charged for allottment of shares and alleged inability to prove genuineness of transaction can be assessed as unexplained cash credit explained in the light of High Court judgements
ACIT vs. Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15673 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 56(2)(viib), 68, 147
-
The Revenue has been selective in its approach. It picks either the assessee or the AYs pertaining to that assessee for challenging the orders in relation to them, before the higher forums. This results in revenue leakage or perpetuation of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of revenue. The public at large is at a loss to understand as to why the Department/Revenue consistently loses the battle in the higher Courts. This could be then termed as a deliberate or intentional act. If the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is going to conveniently overlook this and not bring the guilty persons to book by initiating disciplinary measures against them, then, no purpose will be served at all. This is not a short term exercise, but a major surgery which will have to be performed. If the Revenue Officials are prepared to take some bold decisions, then, only these state of affairs will improve and not otherwise
PCIT vs. International Biotech Park Ltd (Bombay High Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15672 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 92B Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the absence of material to suggest that there was an "arrangement, understanding or action in concert" with respect of the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, the TPO is not justified in coming to the conclusion that there was an international transaction u/s 92B and that the assessee should have recovered an amount from its AE. The request of the Dept for a remand to the TPO is not acceptable. A remand to the assessment stage cannot be a matter of routine; it has to be so done only when there is anything in the facts and circumstances to so warrant or justify
Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15671 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 92B
-
We are shocked that the UOI through the CIT has taken the matter so casually. The petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid (by the exchequer)
Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15670 (SC)
-
Securities Transaction Tax: CBDT's clarification that where a derivative contract is being settled by physical delivery of shares, the transaction would not be any different from transaction in equity share where the contract is settled by actual delivery or transfer of shares and the rates of STT as applicable to such delivery based equity transactions shall also be applicable to such derivative transaction takes care of the grievance of the stake holders
Association of National Exchanges Members of India vs. SEBI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15669 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147/ 151: S. 150(1) overrides s. 149 but not s. 151. Accordingly, even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority, the requirement of sanction u/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice u/s 147. The failure to obtain sanction renders the reopening invalid
Sonu Khandelwal vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15668 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Sections. 147, 151
-
These Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members for discussion in relation to some cases or related issues. It would be highly risky if such discussions in relation to judicial orders and judicial matters are held in a close-door meeting or in the privacy of the chambers of the members of the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd. vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15667 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: A private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about the subscribers to its share capital. The genuineness of the transaction has to be determined by ground realities and not by documents like PAN cards, board resolutions, share certificates etc. Even shell cos have these documents. If the assessee is not able to produce the brains behind these companies and the documents with respect to their financials, the transaction cannot be regarded as genuine
Pee Aar Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15666 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 56
-
These Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members for discussion in relation to some cases or related issues. It would be highly risky if such discussions in relation to judicial orders and judicial matters are held in a close-door meeting or in the privacy of the chambers of the members of the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15650 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: A private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about the subscribers to its share capital. The genuineness of the transaction has to be determined by ground realities and not by documents like PAN cards, board resolutions, share certificates etc. Even shell cos have these documents. If the assessee is not able to produce the brains behind these companies and the documents with respect to their financials, the transaction cannot be regarded as genuine
Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15649 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.