-
S. 143(1)(a): Even though there was a raging controversy amongst the High Courts on whether expenditure for raising capital is capital or revenue in nature, the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the assessee and any view contrary thereto is a "prima facie" mistake that requires adjustment
CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12739 (SC) · Section 143(1)(a)
-
Bogus share capital: Mere fact that payment was received by cheque or that the applicants were companies borne on the file of the Registrar of Companies does not prove that the transaction was genuine. Even under the unamended s. 68, the onus is on the assessee prove the creditworthiness of the subscribers. Argument that the amendment to s. 68 is not retrospective is not required to be considered
Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12738 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 68
-
Service of notice by Whatsapp: The purpose of service is put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is irrelevant. The rules and procedure are not so ancient or rigid that only antiquated methods of service through a bailiff or by beat of drum is acceptable. E-Mail & Whatsapp are not formally approved but if service is shown to be effected and is acknowledged it cannot be said that the Defendants had ‘no notice’. Defendants who avoid and evade service by regular modes cannot be permitted to take advantage of that evasion
Kross Television India Pvt Ltd vs. Vikhyat Chitra Production
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12737 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 220(6): CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 on stay of demand by the AO does not require the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand. As per the Instruction, if the AO requires the assessee to pay less, or more, than 15% of the demand, the sanction of the Pr. CIT is required. If the AO demands 15% to be paid, the assessee is entitled to approach the Pr CIT for review of the AO's decision
Jagdish Gandabhai Shah vs. Pr CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12736 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 220(6)
-
Strictures passed regarding the "standard excuses" of the department for delay in filing appeals, namely, budgetary constraints, lack of infrastructure to make soft copies, change of standing counsel etc
Pr CIT vs. Diana Builders & Contractors Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12735 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 2(15)/12AA: The activities of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are prima facie in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration and are hit by the proviso to s. 2(15). If the receipts from these activities are in excess of the minimum prescribed threshold limit, the DIT is required to conduct detailed enquiry and examination as to the nexus between the activities and trade, commerce or business
MIG Cricket Club vs. DIT (E)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12734 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(15), 12AA
-
S. 68/ 2(14): "On Money" received by an assessee for sale of agricultural land has to be treated as "agricultural income" and exempted from tax if the facts show that the assessee has no other source for the receipt
ITO vs. Abraham Varghese Charuvil
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12733 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Sections 68, 2(14)
-
Article 5 India-UK DTAA: Entire law on what constitutes a "permanent establishment" in the context of the 'Formula One Grand Prix of India' event explained after extensive reference to case laws, OECD Model Convention and commentary by Philip Baker, Klaus Vogel and other experts
Formula One World Championship Limited vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12691 (SC)
-
S. 263: There is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If the AO has called for the necessary details and the assessee has furnished the same, the fact that the AO is silent in the assessment order does not mean that he has not applied his mind so as to justify exercise of revisional powers by the CIT u/s 263
Small Wonder Industries vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12685 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
S. 279: As there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left open
Vikram Singh vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12684 (HC-DELHI) · Section 279
-
Bogus purchases: Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus
M/s Beauty Tax vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12683 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain
CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12682 (SC) · Sections 45, 50(2)
-
An additional ground (relating to claim u/s 80-IA) cannot be permitted to be raised if the necessary evidence that the assessee is entitled to the claim is not on record. The fact that claim has been allowed by the AO in a subsequent year and that there is no reason why the claim should not be allowed in the present year is irrelevant. Also, the assessee must satisfy the appellate authority that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12679 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Transfer Pricing: An international transaction can be clubbed / aggregated with other international transactions if such transactions are closely connected with each other. The onus is on the assessee to establish the justification for clubbing the transactions. If the TPO has not applied TNMM at the entity level and has bench marked the royalty payment on standalone basis and not subjected the cost of production or other transactions to bench marking, the contention that when TNMM is applied at the entity level, there was no necessity of separate bench marking in respect of royalty transactions cannot be accepted
Kaypee Electronics & Associates Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12678 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that sale on 'going concern' basis is 'slump-sale' and not depreciable asset sale u/s 50(2).
CIT. vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12641 (SC) · Section. 50(2)
-
ITAT - In absence of a substantive order the AO was not justified in passing a protective order.
Nita Donald Sequeira Versus Income tax officer-17 (2) (4) (Formerly ITO-12 (2) (4) ), Mumbai.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12639 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55550&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The mere fact that the CIT is not in agreement with the view adopted by the AO, would not render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
Future Ideas Co. Ltd. Versus Principal CIT – 9, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12638 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55553&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT -As the funds for purchase of vehicles have been provided by the assessee company and they have been shown as assets of the assessee company. Hence, the assessee company should be considered as owner for all practical purposes and hence it is entitled for depreciation even where motor car registered in the name of the Director and not the company.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. Kaytee Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12637 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55555&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No revision u/s 263 in case of inadequate enquiry on the part of the AO for this is not a case of lack of enquiry.
Braham Dev Gupta Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12636 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee is not answerable to explain source of source of the fund u/s 68.
ACIT, CIRCLE-33 (1), NEW DELHI Versus SMT. PREM ANAND
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12635 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55558&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.