All landmark rulings

21,598 rulings

Desk: Both Direct Tax GST

Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 27 Jun 2018
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the AO has remained silent with folded hands and has not made any independent inquiry from the concerned AO of share holder company and has not controverted the evidence produced by the assessee, that itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. The fact that there is no personal appearance from director of said cash creditor (share holder) does not mean that an adverse inference u/s 68 can be drawn by the AO without the AO discharging the secondary burden lying upon him (All imp judgements referred)
Moti Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15274 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 68
Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 27 Jun 2018
Condonation of delay (92 days): The AO was negligent in filing the remand report before the CIT(A). The same attitude has continued at the stage of filing appeal to the ITAT. The excuse that the appeal was not filed due to the AO being busy with time barring assessment is not acceptable. The AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Pr. CIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown
ITO. Vs. Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15273 (ITAT-DELHI)
Direct Tax ·Gujarat High Court · 27 Jun 2018
HC - Transfer of trademark with itself would transfer not only the emblem or figure, but also the reputation of business and therefore a separate deed for transferring goodwill, would make no difference. Capital gains addition on undervalued goodwill deleted.
CIT. Vs. Bisleri International Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15268 (HC-GUJARAT)
Direct Tax ·AP High Court · 26 Jun 2018
HC -Once a statute declares a transfer to be void, the Court cannot impose a burden upon the Revenue to go to the Civil Court and seek a declaration.
Shriya Bhupal Vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15259 (HC-AP) · Section. 281
Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 23 Jun 2018
S. 90(2) DTAA: The failure to submit a 'Tax Residency Certificate' (TRC) as required by s. 90(4) is not a bar to the grant of benefits under the DTAA. However, the assessee is required to produce reasonable evidence of the entitlement of the foreign entity to benefits under the DTAA
Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15258 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 90(2)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 23 Jun 2018
S. 139(5): There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim by raising technical objection
Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15257 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 139(5)
Direct Tax ·Uttarakhand High Court · 23 Jun 2018
S. 260A: The time limit for filing an appeal to the High Court begins from the date of receipt of the order by the officer entitled to file the appeal. The fact that the ITAT may have dispatched the order earlier is not relevant. The fact that the officer may be aware of the ITAT's order owing to collateral proceedings is also not relevant
DIT (IT) vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15256 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section. 260A
Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 25 Jun 2018
HC - Eexpenses incurred on abandoned project even from capital account is revenue in nature as the venture did not fructify.
Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15255 (HC-MADRAS)
Direct Tax ·Calcutta High Court · 25 Jun 2018
HC - Addition to be sustained which is based on 'window-dressed' financials prepared for availing bank loan and certified by Chartered Accountant in Form 3CB.
Binod Kumar Agarwala Vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15254 (HC-CALCUTTA)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 23 Jun 2018
ITAT - Sec. 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be construed as a limitation to the treaty superiority u/s. 90(2) over domestic law. Therefore, mere non-furnishing of Tax Residency Certificate cannot be treated as a trigger to disentitle the India-US DTAA benefits.
Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15246 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections. 90(4)
Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 22 Jun 2018
HC - AO is required to pass speaking order to dispose off assessee’s objections to re-opening proceedings u/s 147 in view of the directions of SC.
K. Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15240 (HC-MADRAS)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - No addition u/s 68 on account of share premium received by assessee-company.
Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15239 (ITAT-DELHI)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - Retrospective registration u/s 12A granted to university on revenue’s failure to dispose application within the period of 6 months.
Visvesvaraya Technological University Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15238 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 12A
Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - Gains arising on sale of shares by NRI through NRI-PIS SBI account as per FEMA Regulations, is chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ and not under 'business income'.
Mulshankar Saburbhai Panchal vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15237 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Amritsar · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - The transaction could not be treated as trade advance as such penalty levied on film distributor for accepting / repaying booking advance in cash.
Topaz Films vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15236 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 271D/E
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15235 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 139(5)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - Since website development only helped in the promotion of the business, expenditure incurred on its development is revenue in nature as also it did not result in capital base addition of the company.
Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15234 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - Capital gains pursuant to trading in Indian securities to a tax resident of Singapore is not taxable in India under Article 13(4) of India-Singapore DTAA.
D.B. International (Asia) Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15233 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Kolkata · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - In absence of monetary consideration, the transaction doesn’t amount to slump sale u/s. 2(42C) r.w.s. 50B. However, no exemption u/s. 47(vib) as conditions of demerger stipulated in Sec. 2(19AA) weren’t fulfilled.
Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Limited
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15232 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 22 Jun 2018
ITAT - There cannot be straightjacket formula for warranty provision in each industry alike and it may differ from industry to industry. Sets aside lower authorities order denying deduction for provision of warranty expenses.
Huawei Telecommunication (India) Company Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15231 (ITAT-DELHI)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.