-
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking
Soman Sun Citi vs. JCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 69C
-
Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even if the assessee has not earned any tax-free income on the investment. Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) is not binding on the AO as it is a non-jurisdictional High Court. CBDT's Circular 5/2014 is in accordance with Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd 394 ITR 449 (SC) & Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC)
Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14938 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section. 14A
-
When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system? To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate! In other words, the Union of India has created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure
Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14937 (SC)
-
Court records sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the CIT has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed. His expression of regret for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department is gracious and a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. If such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary
Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14934 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 56(2)(viib) Fair Market Value of shares transferred: Rule 11UA allows the assessee the right to adopt the method of his choice for valuing shares (DCF, NAV etc). The AO has no jurisdiction to insist that the assessee should adopt only a particular method for determining the value of the shares. AOs should not deviate from earlier years’ decisions without assigning any concrete and justifiable reasons. Tax determination cannot be left to whims and fancies of a person. It is a serious task and has to be accomplished in a disciplined manner. If an assessee has been allowed a certain concession in earlier year/(s) it cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years without plausible reasons
DCIT. Vs. Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14933 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. S. 56(2)(viib)
-
Section 271(1)(c): No penalty can be imposed when the addition to income has been made on the basis of estimation
Tuta Lakshmana Rao vs. ITO ITA No.: 393/Viz/2016
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14922 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Sections 48 & 49: Value of tenancy rights needs to be considered for the purpose of determining the cost of acquisition
ACIT vs. Shree Krishna Pharmacy ITA No. 3947/Mum/2016
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14921 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 48 & 49
-
Section 40(a)(ia) – Second proviso – Retrospective or prospective
DCIT v. Jagjit Singh Sayal (through legal heir)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14913 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f 01.04.2010 to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with the Government by the due date of filing the return of income should be interpreted liberally and equitably and applied retrospectively from the date when s. 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from the AY 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates. The amendment is curative in nature and should be given retrospective operation as if the amended provision existed even at the time of its insertion
CIT. vs. Calcutta Export Company
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14892 (SC) · Section. 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 158BB Block Assessment: While it is a cardinal principle of law that in order to add any income in the block assessment, evidence of such income must be found in the course of the search u/s 132, any material or evidence found/collected in a survey u/s 133A which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can also be utilized while making the Block Assessment. The same would fall under the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” occurring in s. 158 BB
CIT. vs. S. Ajit Kumar
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14891 (SC) · Section. 158BB
-
Section. 92CB
Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14890 (HC-GUJARAT) · S. 92CB Transfer Pricing Safe Harbour Rules: If the assessee has exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10THD(1) & the AO has not passed any order under rule 10THD(4) declaring the exercising of option to be invalid, the option is treated as valid. Thereafter, the Transfer Pricing regime does not apply & the AO has no authority to make any reference to the TPO to ascertain the arm's length price of the assessee's specified domestic transactions. CBDT's circular dated 10.3.2006 could not have and does not lay down anything to the contrary
-
S. 253(5) r.w.s. 252(1): The Registrar of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and decide on applications for condonation of delay. Only the Court/ Tribunal have the power. The order passed by the Registrar is ultra vires his power and non est in law. He should desist from passing such orders
In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14889 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 253(5)
-
S. 10A: If deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software u/s 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the assessee which could have never been the intention of the legislature As the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also. Otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula unworkable and absurd
CIT. vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14888 (SC) · Section. 10A
-
Loan Waiver - Applicability of S. 28(iv) & 41(1): (a) S. 28(iv) does not apply if the receipts are in the nature of cash or money (b) S. 41(1) does not apply if the waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability i.e if the assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act qua the payment of interest in any previous year
CIT. vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14887 (SC) · Sections. 28(iv), 41(1)
-
S. 80-IA(4): Inland Container Depots (ICDs) are Inland Ports and income earned out of these Depots are eligible for deduction. However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places
CIT. vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14886 (SC) · Section. 80-IA(4)
-
HC - Whether ‘oral statement’ constitutes ‘evidence found’ during search to be decided by larger bench.
CIT vs. M. S. AGGARWAL
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14872 (HC-DELHI)
-
SC - Larger bench to decide whether Sec. 80HHC deduction entitlement to supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc.
Carpet India, Panipat (Haryana) Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14871 (SC) · Section 80HHC
-
S. 35AB: Question whether the term "acquiring know-how" means acquiring on ownership basis or on lease and whether deduction can be allowed u/s 37(1) for revenue expenditure explained. Judgements in Anil Starch Products 232 TM 129 and Diffusion Engineers 376 ITR 487 (Kar) (based on Swaraj Engines 301 ITR 284 (SC)) dissented from
Standard Batteries Ltd vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14870 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 35AB
-
S. 80HHC: Law laid down in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 & Sushil Kumar Gupta 210 TM 251 (SC) is not correct. Question whether supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction u/s 80HHC is referred to the larger Bench
CIT vs. Carpet India
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14869 (SC) · Section 80HHC
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - 'Change of opinion' concept is not applicable where return had been accepted u/s 143(1) without scrutiny.
Laxmiraj Distributors Vs. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14861 (SC) · Section. 143(1)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.