-
S. 292C: Addition cannot be made on the basis of a document which is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question and does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 2)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13216 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
-
S. 292C: An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 1)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13215 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
-
S. 147: If the AO does not follow the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19, the reopening proceedings have to be quashed. There is no reason to restore the issue to the AO to pass a further/fresh order because it would give a licence to the AO to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the assessee by reviving stale/ old matters
KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13214 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
ITAT - Levy of penalty u/s 271D justified as the reasons given by the assessee that there is a business exigency in as much he needs to make the payment for purchase of landed properties, is not coming within the purview of reasonable cause as defined u/s 273B.
Y.V. Murali Krishna, Gudivada Versus ACIT, Range-1, Vijayawada
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13213 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56998&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - From the plain reading of 3rd proviso section 48 of I.T. Act, government securities are not excluded for indexation benefit only bond or debenture included in the third proviso to Sec.48.
M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13212 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=57004&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In absence of any commercial exploitation, payment to a foreign company for accessing database is not royalty under Article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA.
Kinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13211 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Writ allowed - Notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 quashed as reopening was under the directives and compulsion of the audit party which is impermissible.
Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13210 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
ITAT - Stay extension granted beyond 365 days. Follows Delhi HC ruling in Pepsi Foods which had attained finality post Revenue’s SLP disposal by SC.
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13209 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Even though capital asset sold by assessee was the ‘land appurtenant to the house’, and not the ‘residential house’, exemption u/s 54 allowed.
Sh. Adarsh Kumar Swarup vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13208 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 54
-
HC - Since assessee made substantial investment of capital and loan and the new unit has separate premises, separate labour force, separate license and electricity substantial expansion of existing business qualifies for Sec. 80IB benefit.
ACIT. vs. Leo Fasteners
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13207 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80-IB
-
S. 153B(2)(a): Merely visiting the premises on the pretext of concluding the search but not actually finding anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second panchnama so as to extend the limitation period for passing the s. 153A assessment order. In such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a panchnama at all. The visit and the panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to s. 153B (2) (a) of the Act
Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13206 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153B(2)(a)
-
Interest on NPAs: While determining the tax liability of an assessee, two factors come into play, namely, (i) the recognition of income in terms of the recognised accounting principles and (ii) the computation thereof in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While the computation of taxability is solely governed by the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the accounting principles have no role to play, the recognition of income stands on a different footing. Insofar as income recognition is concerned, the RBI Directions prevail in view of s. 45Q of the RBI Act and s. 145 has no role to play. The AO has to follow the RBI Directions
Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13205 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Whether subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt: If the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, it means that the policy makers envision greater profitability as an incentive for investors to expand units. Such subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits
CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13188 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 5(2)(a): Salary of a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on-board foreign ships accrues outside India and is not assessable in India even if received by the seafarer into the NRE bank account maintained in India by the seafarer. CBDT Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017 is clarificatory
Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13187 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 5(2)(a)
-
GST on legal services: There is no clarity whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. Legal practitioners are under genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered. The Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by the Court
JK Mittal & Co. vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13175 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Mere fact that parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share capital money were not traceable and did not appear before the AO in response to summons does not mean that the transaction can be treated as bogus if the documentation shows the genuineness of the transaction
CIT. vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13170 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
S. 92A Transfer Pricing: The mere fact that an enterprise has de facto participation in the capital, management or control over the other enterprise does not make the two enterprises "associated enterprises" so as to subject their transactions to the rigors of transfer pricing law
Pr. CIT. vs. M/s Veer Gems
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13169 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 92A
-
ITAT - Expenditure incurred to earn exempt income determined u/s. 14A cannot be added while computing book profits for u/s. 115JB.
Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13161 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 14A
-
S. 158BFA(1): If the delay in filing the return is completely attributable to the revenue for non-furnishing of copies of the documents and not giving inspection of the documents seized within a reasonable time after making the demand, the interest has to waived. Though s. 158BFA(1) does not (pre 2002) confer the power to waive interest, it has to be read in on equitable construction because the subject cannot be made to pay for the negligence of the Officers of the State (J. H. Gotla 4 SCC 343 followed)
Mahavir Manakchand Bhansali vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13133 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 158BFA(1)
-
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act
CIT. vs. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13132 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 221
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.