-
ITAT - In order to impose any penalty, it is obligatory on the part of the Officer to indicate specific allegation. Penalty for non-filing of transfer pricing documents cannot be levied in a general manner
ACIT vs. Gillette India Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5113 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 92D, 271G
-
ITAT - Important propositions of law laid down for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA as also for an assessee to be classified as charitable under the residuary category
Delhi & District Cricket Association vs. DIT (E)
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5112 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
-
ITAT - It is the real accrual of income that has to be taken into consideration and not a hypothetical accrual of income. The rights would commence in respect of each of the films on different dates and accordingly the assessee has offered the income in subsequent years in respect of advance received for transfer of home video & satellite broadcasting for a period of five years
B. R. Films vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5111 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - The sine quo non for action under Section 147 (to deal with escapement of income) is gathering or availability of some “tangible material” requiring the matter to be re-opened. Assessment cannot be reopened in the absence of "fresh material"
Donaldson India Filters Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5110 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
-
ITAT - When the law requires the AO of the person searched to record the necessary satisfaction, it is the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched who is obliged to record such satisfaction in the capacity of that AO and that too in the case of the person searched. Mere fact that AO of the person searched and the assessee is the same person, does not, in any manner, obliterate the requirement of law necessitating the recording of satisfaction in the case of the person searched.
Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd.,vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5109 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Only because the TPO in the assessment year 2007-08, comes to a conclusion that the transaction is not genuine as it fails the benefit test, by relying upon such finding of TPO, the assessment order cannot be said to be either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Revision u/s 263 not valid
Astrix Laboratories Ltd vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5108 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - There being no 'transfer' in terms of section 2(47), amount received by assessee from its JV company for use of technical knowhow of Anti Retro Virals developed by the assessee is business income and not capital gains.
Mylan Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5107 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
HC - A timber merchant importing timber and selling the same to registered dealer is required to collect tax at source u/s 206C. No distinction between 'Timber grown in India' (whether in forest or elsewhere) and the 'Timber imported' from abroad
Excel Timbers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5106 (HC-KERALA) · Section. 206C
-
HC- Service Tax on Hotels & Restaurants Constitutionally Valid
M/s. Hotel East Park & Another Vs. UOI & Ors.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5105 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
ITAT - If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act
ADIT, International Taxation vs. Express Drilling Systems LLC
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5104 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 40(a)(ia)
-
HC - AO not competent to treat donations as "capitation fees" in view of Karnataka Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. Even though Chairman and few members of KLE Society were Chancellor and members of 'KLE University', donations received by assessee could not be treated as 'capitation fee' for seeking admission in KLE University
CIT vs. Karnataka Lingayat Education Society
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5103 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
HC - No business loss set-off against betting income. Total winnings from betting of the assessee should be brought to tax at the rate of 40% as contemplated under Section 115BB pre-2001
CIT vs. Dr. MA.M.Ramaswamy
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5102 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 115BB
-
HC - The normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed.
CIT vs GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5101 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 10B(9)
-
HC - Civil structure and the electric fitting, equipment were part and parcel of the windmill and thus eligible for depreciation @ 80%
CIT vs. Eastman Impex
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5100 (HC-P&H)
-
ITAT - Loan & deposit by way of journal entries are not covered u/s 269SS. Transactions between a firm and its partner are also not covered
ACIT vs. M/s Vardaan Fashion
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5099 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 269SS
-
ITAT - Even if the AO of the person searched and the 'other person' is the same, the recording of satisfaction by the AO having jurisdiction over the person searched is an essential and prerequisite condition for bestowing jurisdiction to the AO of the ‘other person. Impact of amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 w.e.f. 1.10.2014 considered
Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5098 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 153C
-
ITAT - Assessee's argument that s. 10B(4) lays down a computational formula and that all business profits (including DEPB receipts) should be eligible for deduction irrespective of the effective source is not acceptable
ACIT vs. S. K. International (Export) Co
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5097 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10B(4)
-
ITAT - As DIT is of the same rank as the CIT(A), an appeal against the DIT's order can only be filed before the ITAT even though s. 253(1) does not refer to s. 271FA
Raibareilly District Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. DIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5096 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section 271FA
-
ITAT - Fees or consideration received for rendition of a service to business, trade or commerce will not attract the disability under first proviso to s. 2(15) if such service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself
National Horticulture Board vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5095 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 2(15)
-
ITAT - Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C)
Fortune Polymers Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5094 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.