-
S. 139AA (inserted by the Finance Act 2017) which mandates quoting of Aadhaar number with the PAN is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The proviso to s. 139AA(2) (which deems the PAN void ab initio if the Aadhaar number is not quoted) is also valid. However, as the challenge under Article 21 is pending before the Constitution Bench, a partial stay is granted. Those who are already enrolled under the Aadhaar scheme should comply with s. 139AA (2). Those who are not enrolled need not do so for the time being and their PAN will not be treated as invalid. The said proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect
Binoy Visam vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12999 (SC) · Section. 139AA
-
S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied unless there is "evidence beyond doubt" that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee. The fact that the assessee did not voluntarily furnish the return of income, and that the merits were decided against it, does not per se justify levy of penalty. The bonafides of the explanation of the assessee for not complying with the law have to be seen
DDIT. vs. Metapath Software International Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12998 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 50C: Failure by the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the stamp duty authorities is a fatal error and the assessment order has to be annulled. The matter cannot be set aside to the AO for a second chance. The power of the ITAT to set aside cannot be exercised so as to allow the AO to cover up the deficiencies in his case
ITO. vs. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12997 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 50C
-
SC - Sec. 139AA constitutionality valid. Enforces Sec. 139AA for those assessees who possess an Aadhaar card but grants partial relief to non-Aadhaar holders by staying the operation of the provision for them.
Binoy Viswam Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12996 (SC) · Section. 139AA
-
ITAT - Merely because the assessee concerned was not able to pay dues to the bank where the property was kept as collateral security it cannot be considered as distress sale. Lower authorities were justified in applying Sec. 50C of the Act.
Shri. Subash Subramanian Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2 (4) Chennai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12962 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56359&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - TPO and the DRP were in error in holding that the nature of services rendered by ANPAP were in the nature of stewardship activity or shareholder activity. Charges paid by the Assessee to ANPAP are at Arm’s Length.
M/s. Akzo Nobel India Limited Versus D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata, And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12961 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56361&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Bogus penny stocks capital gain: The s. 131 statement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in the form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments etc prove genuine purchase and sale of the penny stock. Failure to provide cross-examination is a fatal error
Kamla Devi S. Doshi vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12957 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Condonation of delay: Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The mere fact that the AO was busy in other time-bearing assessments is not an excuse for delay particularly given the fact that s. 260A provides a long time period of 120 days. Every day’s delay has to be explained
CIT vs. Historic Infracon
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12956 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) on bank guarantee commission paid as the same is not in the nature of interest expenditure.
Acumen Capital Marketing (I) Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1), Kochi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12955 (ITAT-COCHIN) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56334&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - If over the period of time the said product could not be sold and has become obsolete due to fast changing technologies and software programme, then it has to be left to the prudence of the businessman to write it off in the year in which it considers that the said product cannot be sold at all or it has become scrap.
Differential Technologies Ltd. Versus ITO Ward -10 (3) New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12954 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56339&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No adddition on account of gain on settlement of loan either u/s 28(iv) or 41(1) as the instant loan was not utilized for the trading liability of the assessee and therefore the waiver off the same cannot amount to income which is chargeable to tax.
M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-VI Kolktaa, And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12953 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56342&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. Absence of due care, in a case such as the present does not mean that the assessed is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified.
Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobaria Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -12 Ahmedabad
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12952 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56346&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Depreciation on Capital subsidy - For the purpose of computing depreciation allowable to the assessee, the subsidy amount cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the capital asset.
DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad Versus Sakar Glazed Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12951 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56347&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No depreciation on intangible asset acquired under a business transfer agreement.
Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12950 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Since on the date of institution of the trust deed, the identities of the contributors/beneficiaries and their individual shares were not known, assessee trust cannot be considered as a Determinate Trust under Expl to Sec. 164.
TVS Investments iFund, Jayalakshmi Estates vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12949 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - Revision u/s 263 - Merely because the DIT does not agree with the opinion of the A.O, he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 to substitute his own opinion.
Technip UK Limited Versus The D.I.T. International - II New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12948 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56283&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Merely because the cost of the printer is abnormally high, the same cannot be ground to deny higher rate of deprecation @60%.
Shri Sumit Dev Versus The I.T.O Ward – 22 (1) New Delhi, And Vice-versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12947 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56319&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In case of unexplained capital introduced by the partners, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the firm and if anything remains unexplained the addition can only be made in the hands of the partners.
The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7, Surat Versus M/s. Veer Gems
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12946 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56323&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Entire law on the onus of the assessee and the department with regard to the genuineness of the share capital explained in the light of several judgements . Law on effect of not giving cross-examination to the assessee also explained
Arceli Realty Limited vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12934 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) for delay in filing TDS returns cannot be levied if the delay was caused due to requirement to collect PAN of payees. The non-availability of the PAN of the payees is a reasonable cause. The delay is unintentional and it causes no loss to the revenue as the TDS has been deducted and deposited in the treasury. Wrong levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) (failure to deliver TDS certificate) instead of u/s 272A(2)(c) (delay in filing TDS returns) shows that AO is not clear of the charge and vitiates the penalty proceedings
Argus Golden Trades India Ltd vs. JCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12933 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 272A(2)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.