-
ITAT - Claim of exemption u/s 11 - violating conditions u/s 13 - Foreign travel expenditure which has been incurred on the wife of Managing Director is not to be allowed as deduction.
Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Pune
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12927 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56268&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Loan & advanced to the shareholders in the guise of share application money to the another concern / company. Dividend income is taxable in the hands of shareholders and not in the hands of the concern.
G. Indira Krishna Reddy Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 2 (2), Hyderabad, And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12926 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56269&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147/148 reassessment has to be based on "fresh material". A reopening based on reappraisal of existing material is invalid. The assessee's duty is only to disclose facts and not to make inferences. Consolidated Photo 281 ITR 394 (Del) is not good law
DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12923 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
S. 153A: Entire law explained on whether concluded assessments can be reopened u/s 153A even in the absence of incriminating material found during the search in the light of the apparently conflicting verdicts in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) and Dayawanti Gupta v. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del)
Pr CIT vs. Meetu Gutgutia
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12922 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153A
-
S. 132/153A: Important law explained on the preconditions necessary for the department to initiate valid search and seizure action u/s 132 and whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the same. Consequences of the search being declared void on the s. 153A assessment also explained
Ameeta Mehra vs. ADIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12921 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 132, 153A
-
S. 54F: U/s 161, a trust which is for the sole benefit of an individual, has to be assessed as an “individual” and not as an “AOP”. Consequently, a trust is eligible for s. 54F deduction
Balgopal Trust vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12905 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54F
-
S. 271(1)(c): 'Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' and 'concealment of particulars of income' have different connotations. The failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice which of the two charges is applicable reflects non-application of mind and is in breach of natural justice as it deprives the assessee of an opportunity to contest. The penalty proceedings have to be quashed
Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12899 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Bogus purchases: In view of the Supreme Court’s order in Vijay Proteins Ltd vs. CIT whereby the verdicts of the Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd vs. Dy. CIT were confirmed, the AO has to accept the law and verify whether the transaction is genuine or not on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments
CIT vs. M/s Carpet Mahal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12898 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
ITAT - Capital gain computation - If the sale transaction in question is not registered with stamp value authorities, then full value of consideration has to be accepted as declared by the assessee.
Sh. Jastinder Singh Vedi Versus DCIT, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12897 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56173&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee was unable to satisfy the AO about three essential ingredients, viz, existence of lender, ability of lender to advance funds and genuineness of the transaction, therefore unexplained cash-credit addition u/s. 68 justified. Merely filing balance confirmation and details of existence of creditors doesn’t show that the transactions are genuine.
Pavankumar M Sanghvi Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12892 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - In case of JDA, land-transfer shall be taxable in the year of entering into the Joint Development Agreement and not in the year when constructed area was transferred.
ITO. Vs. Shri Shafiq Mohammed Shah
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12891 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 2(47)(v)
-
S. 69C Bogus purchases: (i) The AO is not entitled to treat the purchases as bogus merely on the basis of information from the sales-tax dept. He has to make independent inquiry, (ii) Fact that the vendors did not respond to s. 133(6) notices & the assessee did not produce them is not sufficient if the documentation is in order and payments are through banking channels
Geolife Organics vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12888 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: (i) The AO cannot ignore the documentation produced by the assessee to show that the investors are genuine, (ii) A s. 132(4) statement cannot be relied upon if the assessee is not give right of cross-examination, (iii) Fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) notices does not warrant an adverse inference, (iv) Fact that the shareholders have low income does not warrant adverse inference, (v) Assessee is not required to prove source of source
Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12887 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Supreme Court issues strictures against the income-tax department stating that it is "extremely unhappy" with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the SLP and demands that "The concerned authorities need to wake up"
CIT. vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12880 (SC)
-
HC - The mere fact that the interest u/s. 220(2) was 1.5 times the tax by itself does not have any relevance for determining whether the Assessee was suffering from any genuine hardship.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12870 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 220(2)
-
Bogus share capital: Fact that the investigation wing’s report alleged that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions and that the identity of shareholders, genuineness etc was suspect is not sufficient. The AO is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on the report of the investigation wing
CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12869 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 54/ 54F: There is no requirement that the investment in the new residential house should be situated in India prior to the amendment by the Finance (Nos.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015
ITO vs. Nishant Lalit Jadhav
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12868 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 54, 54F
-
ITAT - In the absence of registration of JDA the agreement does not fall under Section 53A of 1882 Act and consequently Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply.
The ACIT, Circle 4 (1) , Chandigarh Versus Shri Hardev Singh Arshi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12860 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=56084&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Sale proceeds were not credited to bank account under capital gain account scheme but entire funds were invested in assessee’s business concern. It is a clear case of diversion of funds for business. Assessee's Sec. 54 deduction claim restricted.
R. Jayabharathi vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12859 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 54
-
HC - Sec.80HHD deduction should be granted qua eligible unit/units only. Revenue cannot draw support from Sec. 80HHC provisions and the two provisions (i.e Sections 80HHC and 80HHD) are not analogous.
CIT. vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12858 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 80HHD, 80HHC
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.