-
HC - AO not empowered to make disallowance in final order when such disallowance had not emanated from the draft assessment order or from the directions of DRP.
Sanmina SCI India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13388 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Requirement to furnish the Tax Residency Certificate was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from April 1, 2013 which has no application to AY 2005-06. Reassessment on UAE-resident Quashed.
Prashant M. Timblo vs. CCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13387 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Documentary evidences adequate to prove share application money genuineness even in case of no response/appearance by shareholders before Revenue against summons issued.
Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13386 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - While deciding the ALP of umbrella of services what has to considered is the right of assessee that it is entitled to avail. If it avails only a few services out of the boquet of services the TPO should not reject the TP study of the assessee on the ground that it did not avail all the services or the majority of services as mentioned in the agreement.
Dimension Data India Private Limited, (Formerly known as Dimension Data India Limited) Versus DCIT –Range- 6 (2) (2), Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13385 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=57400&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Benefit of deduction u/s.57(iii) - The only requirement is that the expenditure is with the object of earning income and not dependent upon actual earning of income in fact.
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Nagpur Versus Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13382 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69707&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Waiver of interest u/s 220(2) - The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide.
Alagesan Proprietor: Manigandan Rice Mill Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -3, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, The Tax Recovery Officer -8, The Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13381 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69709&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Lays down the legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of 'peak credit'. No benefit of ‘Peak credit’ as deposits remain unexplained.
CIT. vs. D.K. Garg
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13380 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 260A: Right of appeal is not a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. This right gets vested in the litigants at the commencement of the lis and such a vested right cannot be taken away or cannot be impaired or imperilled or made more stringent or onerous by any subsequent legislation unless the subsequent legislation said so either expressly or by necessary intendment. An intention to interfere with or impair or imperil a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by express words or by necessary implication.
K Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13375 (SC) · Section. 260A
-
S. 271AAA: No penalty u/s 271AAA can be levied in respect of undisclosed income found during a search u/s 132 if the AO did not put a specific query to the assessee by drawing his attention to s. 271 AAA and asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived
Pr CIT. vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13374 (HC-DELHI) · S. 271AAA
-
S. 43(1) Explanation 10: The law laid down in PJ Chemicals 210 ITR 830 (SC) that only a subsidy or grant given to offset the cost of an asset can be reduced from the "actual cost" of the asset and not a general subsidy continues to hold good even after the insertion of Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). A subsidy/ grant from a foreign sovereign Country does not fall within Expl 10 because the foreign Country is not a "person" as defined in s. 2(31)
Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13373 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 43(1)
-
S. 80P Test of Mutuality: An assessee cannot be treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members if it has carved out a category called ‘nominal members’. These are those members who are making deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in the real sense. Most of the business of the assessee was with this category of persons who have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits is utilised to advance gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. It is found that the depositors and borrowers are quite distinct. In reality, such activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society
The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13372 (SC) · Section. 80P
-
S. 115JA/ JB Book Profits: Clause (i) to the Explanation was inserted to supersede HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC). Accordingly, a mere provision for bad debts has to be added back for computation of book profit u/s 115JA/JB. However, in terms of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 (SC), if there is a simultaneous reduction from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet, the provision amounts to a write-off of the debt which is not hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB
CIT. vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13371 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 115JA/ JB
-
S. 68 "Peak Credits": An accommodation entry provider wanting to avail the benefit of the 'peak credit' has to make a clean breast of all the facts within his knowledge concerning the credit entries in the accounts. He has to explain with sufficient detail the source of all the deposits in his accounts as well as the corresponding destination of all payments from the accounts. The assessee should be able to show that money has been transferred through banking channels from the bank account of creditors to the bank account of the assessee, the identity of the creditors and that the money paid from the accounts of the assessee has returned to the bank accounts of the creditors. The assessee has to discharge the primary onus of disclosure in this regard
CIT. vs. D. K. Garg
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13370 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - Excess stock / investment found in search to be treated as ‘business income’. Set off business loss allowed while computing tax liability u/s 115BBE.
ACIT. vs. Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13369 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section. 115BBE
-
SC - In all cases where assessee is in appeal in the HC u/s. 260A, if the date of assessment is prior to March 06, 2003, Sec. 52A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 shall not apply and the court fee shall be payable as per provisions prevailing as on the date of such assessment order.
K. Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13362 (SC)
-
Severe strictures passed to condemn the illegal practice of the Dept of collecting undated cheques from taxpayers after search/ survey without even quantifying the extent of duty evasion. Attempt of the unscrupulous officers is to 'negotiate' the evaded duty by threats and coercion. It is not rule of law but anarchy unleashed by holders of public office. It is an abuse of law which has to be stopped
Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13361 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence
Pr CIT. vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13360 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
HC (Larger Bench) - If an assessee debits provision for doubtful debt to the Profit and Loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the current liabilities and provisions on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt and not entitled to SEc. 36(1)(vii) benefit.
Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13359 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
HC - No penalty u/s 271AAA in case of AO’s failure to seek manner of earning ‘undisclosed income’.
PCIT. Vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13358 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 271AAA
-
ITAT - Subsequent demolition of new house is not a ground to deny Sec. 54 exemption claim.
Vikas Kumar vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13357 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 54
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.