-
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
-
ITAT - No TDS on remission of employee training expenses to overseas parent by an Indian company for payment to a overseas training agency (i.e. third party) as the same is not reimbursement.
Ershisanye Construction Group India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12857 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Cost of employment would include only internal costs incurred by organisation to employ individual, however any cost incurred over and above that to depute the individual for a particular assignment (i.e. travel, insurance etc.), would be external cost, not includible as FTS.
Gemological Institute International Inc. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12856 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Depreciation allowed despite TDS default on ‘capitalised’ software payment.
Wintac Limited vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12855 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as declaration of additional income by filing a revised return before initiation of re-assessment proceedings is valid.
Murli Dodeja vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12854 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
S. 68 cash credit: If the assessee has explained the source of the loans received by it, the fact that the lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance the funds to the assessee does not mean that the loan received by the assessee can be treated as unexplained income. A statement recorded under duress, which is retracted later, cannot be the sole basis for addition
Anil Chhaganlal Jain vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12853 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
S. 56(2)(vi): A HUF is a "group of relatives". Consequently, a gift received from a HUF by a member of the HUF is exempt from tax as provided in the Explanation to s. 56(2)(vi)
DCIT vs. Ateev V. Gala
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12852 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(vi)
-
ITAT - Where assessee engaged a third party for coding or writing program, software was developed under the instruction, control and supervision of assessee. Sec. 10A exemption available with respect to software exported by assessee.
DCIT. Vs. Mahati Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12846 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 10A
-
ITAT - No sec. 80IB(10) deduction to assessee-builder on account of violation of condition under clause (f) i.e. allotment of more than one residential unit to same individuals/family members.
Shri Syed Aleemullah Vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12843 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 80-IB(10)
-
ITAT - Liability to pay compensation was crystallized when assessee accepted its failure to perform its part under the JDA agreement and thus determination of compensation after the balance sheet date has to be taken into account in view of the principle of prudence and conservatism accounting as per AS-4.
Canara Housing Development Company vs. JCIT (OSD
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12842 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
S. 145: If the AO has not rejected the books of account, it means that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts in accordance with the prescribed standards as per s. 145 of the Act. If so, the AO is not entitled to make any addition on account of sale of goods out of books or for investment in stock out of undisclosed sources
CIT vs. Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12833 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 145
-
SC - Rental income from sub-licensing of shopping centre is taxable as ‘house property’ income and not business income.
Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12832 (SC)
-
ITAT - Classification of land as agricultural in revenue records does not conclusively prove the nature of land sold by assessee. Absent agricultural operations, gains arising on sale of land shall be exigible to capital gains tax and spontaneous vegetation and land location would not be relevant.
ITO vs. Shri Vijay Shah
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12831 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - No work was done by the agents for the assessee warranting payment of commission, therefore disallowance of commission expenses justified.
Milap Industrial Corporation Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12830 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55544&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Provisions of section 271AAB are not mandatory. "May" cannot be equated with "shall" especially in penalty proceedings. Using the word "may", gives a discretion to the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision.
Sandeep Chandak, Shakuntala Devi Chandak, Kamal Kishore Chandak Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12829 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55545&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.