-
ITAT - Since assessee’s interest free funds were “far in excess” of investments yielding exempt income, it can be presumed that investment were made from interest free funds even though assessee has raised a loan at the same time. Interest disallowance u/s 14A deleted as end-use trail not necessary.
Shreno Limited vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11834 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 14A
-
ITAT - Where the deposits with the nationalized Bank were made to comply with statutory condition, the assessee would not get the benefit of section 80P(2)(c).
Himali Residential Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (4), Pune
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11833 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53928&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Claim for bad debts not allowed as the balance of the parties in assessee’s books were not tallying with the books of the respective parties.
M/s. Prime Focus Limited Versus ACIT- OSD-1 CEN RG 7, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11832 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53929&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Merely because assessee had claimed expenditure which was not accepted or not acceptable to Revenue that by itself would not attract a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). No penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of interest not being eligible for deduction u/s 43B(e).
DCIT, Circle-1, Surat. Versus Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., c/o Mukesh N. Desai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11831 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53930&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as the assessee had only committed an undoubtful bona fide error and it certainly had no intention of concealing any income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
M/s Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD) , Range-1, Ahmedabad
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11830 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53932&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - New source of income is to be taxed as income from other sources and not as business income.
Shri Budhmal Manaklal Kankaria Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (3), Nashik
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11829 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53933&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Revenue can levy the interest u/s.234B only on the total income declared in the returns and not on the income assessed and determined by the A.O. to that extent.
ACIT, Circle-3, Jamshedpur Versus Shri Shymal Kumar Khan, C/o. M/s. Sun Shine Soap Products
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11828 (ITAT-RANCHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Set off of loss allowed as claimed by the assessee treating the same as excess application of loss u/s.11. Carry forward of excess expenditure of earlier years for set off in the subsequent years allowed.
ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai Versus Malti Vasant Heart Trust
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11827 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53937&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO had to brought on record any positive material to show that the assessee concealed his income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 would not satisfy the requirement of law.
M/s. Gopi Bai Foundation Versus The ACIT, Central Circle- 3 Jaipur
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11826 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53938&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 2(22)(2) Deemed Dividend: The argument that as the shares are issued in the name of the Karta, the HUF is not the “registered shareholder” and so s. 2(22)(e) will not apply to loans paid to the HUF is not correct because in the annual returns filed with the ROC, the HUF is shown as the registered and beneficial shareholder. In any case, the HUF is the beneficial shareholder. Even if it is assumed that the Karta is the registered shareholder and not the HUF, as per Explanation 3 to s. 2(22), any payment to a concern (i.e. the HUF) in which the shareholder (i.e. the Karta) has a substantial interest is also covered
Gopal And Sons (HUF) vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11825 (SC) · Section 2(22)(2)
-
ITAT - Section 44BBB dealing with turnkey projects, is not applicable to assessee engaged in providing consultancy services.
SMEC International (P.) Ltd. v. ADIT, International Taxation, Range-2, New Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11823 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=11076&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Co-operative credit society providing credit facilities to its members alone, and not to general public at large would not be covered by description of term 'co-operative bank' and, would be entitled to seek deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11822 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66869&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Power of Commissioner to condone delay under section 119(2)(b) can also be extended under section 11(2) for condoning delay in depositing accumulated amount.
West Fort Higher Education Trust v. Income-tax Officer, Thrissur
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11821 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68163&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - A company which had earned profits in one out of three years could not be said to be persistent loss making company and could not be and excluded from comparable list.
John Deere India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(1), Pune
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11820 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53925&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessing Officer cannot pass final assessment order under section 143(3) making certain adjustment, to assessee's ALP without passing draft assessment order as required u/s 144C.
Soktas India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11819 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53926&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Not correct to hold that since the company (in which assessee-HUF beneficially held more than 10% share-capital) had issued shares in the name of karta and not in HUF’s name, HUF-assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder, hence Sec 2(22)(e) cannot be made applicable.
Gopal & Sons Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11818 (SC)
-
HC - Advertisement and promotion expenses towards enhancement of brands owned by foreign parent-company is allowable as business expenditure.
Pr. CIT vs. Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11817 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Transport subsidy received under Government scheme to boost industrial growth in north-eastern region constitutes a capital receipt and not a supplementary trade receipt.
Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11816 (HC-GAUHATI)
-
S. 9(1)(vi)/ Article 12: Law on whether consideration received for licensing of software programmes can be assessed as "royalty" u/s 9(1)(vi) and Article 12 of the DTAA explained
Qad Europe B.V. vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11815 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
S. 5/ 9: Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered abroad accrues outside India and is not chargeable to tax in India. The source of the receipt is not relevant. The CIT has wide powers u/s 264 and has to exercise them in favour of the assessee in terms of CBDT Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955
Utanka Roy vs. DIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11814 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Sections 5, 9
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.