-
In the year under consideration, the assessee was not carrying any business activity in terms of the main object of the assessee company. While assessee had borrowed monies from Matrix Logistics Private Limited, it had not claimed any deduction or allowance in respect of the same. The accounting entries cannot be determinative of the nature of receipt and what can be added to income under section 41(1) of the Act is something in respect of which, deduction has been allowed in the past.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22377 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to reason would indicate that the AO has nowhere quantified the income escaped. Notice has been issued after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but before six years. This notice could be issued within limitation if the AO has made out a case that income exceeded rupees one lakh has escaped assessment. No such finding or observation or reference has been made in the reasons extracted.
SUMER S. SANGHVI C/O. MEHTA LODHA & CO VERSUS ACIT, CIR. 5 AHMEDABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22376 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82850&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
DTAA will prevail over the provisions of sec.206AA of the Act. Therefore, the TDS done as per the DTAA is correct. Similar view has been taken in the case of Danisco India (P)Ltd.vs Union of India. It was the ACIT-CPC-TDS who passed the order u/s.154 of the Act and therefore if the CIT(A) is of the view that the issue was debatable then the order u/s.154 of the Act should have been cancelled by him. He dismissed the appeals of the Assessee without realizing that the order u/s.154 of the Act was passed by the ACIT-CPC-TDS and not on any application filed by the Assessee.
M/S ARVIND LIFESTYLES BRANDS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTAR PRADESH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22375 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82851&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has submitted that this was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Accountant of the assessee which has not been accepted by the authorities below. When in respect of sale of property, matter was referred to DVO to determine sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
SHAHEEN M. MUJAWAR PRABHATWADI KURLA PIPELINE VERSUS ITO-26 (3) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22374 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82855&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act provides that no order u/s 271D of the Act shall be passed after expiry of the financial year, in which the proceedings are completed or six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty, is initiated. The relevant financial year, is 2016-17 in this case and the relevant month of initiation of penalty, is April, 2016.
DR. SANJIV KESHAV KARANDE VERSUS ITO, WARD-11 (1) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22373 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82856&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the issue has been decided by the ITAT in earlier year in assessee's favour the disallowance of depreciation by the AO for this year is not sustainable as the same is consequential to the depreciation allowed and WDV of assets in earlier year. Therefore, following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 I wherein held assessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost at which the assessee has taken over the assets and direct the AO to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee.
M/S DHARMANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDL. C.I.T. -5 (1) , MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22372 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82860&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the anomaly, Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel submitted on the basis of the instructions received from respondent No.1 who is present in the Court that there is no demand payable by the firm for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and consequently, question of raising of any demand against the petitioner does not arise. Further, petitioner having retired as partner of the firm with effect from 31.03.2012 raising any demand against the petitioner for assessment year 2013-14 and onwards also does not arise.
AARTI DHARMEN SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25 (1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22371 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable.
MAYUR KANJIBHAI SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER – 25 (3) (1) AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22370 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82829&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal in assessee’s own case has taken a view that for the purpose of computing the capital employed for allowing deduction u/s 35D of the Act, the FCCBs should also be taken into consideration.
M/S SUBEX LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (1) (2) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22369 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82832&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the show cause notice, the AO has fairly mentioned to show cause and to appear within 7 days as to why a penalty u/s 271B should not be levied. AO also mentioned about the opportunity of hearing in person or through authorised representative. The assessee failed to substantiate and furnish plausible explanation, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not found to be plausible. No reasonable cause for not levying penalty was disclosed to the AO. AO levied minimum penalty prescribed u/s 271B.
M/S YASH REALTORS C/O G.P. MEHTA AND CO VERSUS THE DY. CIT-30 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22368 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82833&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has nowhere examined the relevant facts qua assessee’s alleged undisclosed income as to whether the same represented any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other document in the light of the foregoing explanation. We also notice that their lordships judgment in Sudarshan Silk Mills does not deal with the impugned statutory provision but involved sec.271(1)(c) penalty proceedings only.
DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN AGARWAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22367 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82836&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Considering the salient feature of the diamond industry, we are in agreement with Ld. CIT(A) that the margin derived by the diamond manufacturers are between 1.5% to 4.5% and in trading profits are in the range 1 to 3%. When the AO has not doubted the sales declared by the assessee and merely rejecting the purchases is not proper. Assessee must have taken advantage by taking accommodation entries. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the finding of Ld. CIT(A).
ACIT- 22 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS SUJAL H. SHAH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22366 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82837&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits, unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed in filing of appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking bona-fides. In the case in hands, the branch has to act as per advice of Head Office, hence, which consumed sufficient period of time, therefore, it could not be regarded as negligence or of lacking of bona-fides.
STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) GHAZIABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22365 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82820&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The purpose of section 10(37) it is not required that the assessee himself should carry out the agricultural operations on the land.
SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (3) (7) , SURAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22364 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82821&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In respect of loan of ₹ 1 Lakh from Shri Parth Kumar Ghediya, the assessee has filed acknowledgement of return of income and copy of bank pass book. Therefore, the assessee has discharged his onus under section 68 of the Act. Similarly, the loan of ₹ 3 Lakh was taken from non-resident through banking channel. Hence, for this loan the onus has been discharged. Therefore, genuineness of the same cannot be doubted, accordingly, addition of ₹ 4 Lakh is deleted and balance addition is sustained.
SHRI NATHALAL H. PARMAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -8, SURAT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22363 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82822&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to DVO made when no proceeding pending and re-opening made is devoid of any merit and based on wrong and misleading facts and contrary to record. Additional ground is neither maintainable as no argument and justification is given and how it has come to be raised in second round of assessment proceedings which was carried out at the behest of Tribunal for supplying reasons for reopening of assessment only, Nor this grounds of appeal was taken before the AO, hence, it is not maintainable in law and also liable to be dismissed on merits due to facts as discussed above.
M/S. ASHADEEP DEVELOPERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAVSARI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22362 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82823&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On rejection of this application, it filed appeal against the assessment order instead of 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer because the scope in challenging the assessment order in appeal is far more wider than challenging the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectification of any mistake.
MORE MOVER SALES PVT LTD, C/O. SHRI PINAKIN RAMANLAL SONI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) (4), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22361 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82824&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is not a manufacturer and is only a dealer in scrap. During the years under consideration, as noted in the assessment orders, the assessee had sold scrap, which included unburned transformer coils from various distribution companies of UPPCL. Whether a trader in scrap is liable to be fastened with liability to collect TCS under section 206C came up for consideration in the case of Navine Fluorine International Ltd. vs. ACIT(TDS).
M/S LALA BHARAT LAL & SONS VERSUS ITO (TDS) -1 LUCKNOW
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22360 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82828&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 147 of the Act has been made without any tangible material, but on pursuant of the same material which were available before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment. AO was explained during the course of original assessment vide letter dated 11.12.2012 to show that such loss is not speculative in nature. Further it was also pointed out to the Assessing Officer that similar claim of the assessee was duly accepted in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2009-10.
ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22359 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82783&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not recorded any satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been fulfilled and have not issued show cause notice in this regard and hence, initiation of penalty proceedings are bad in law.
PRAMOD KUMAR VERSUS ACIT, NAJIBABAD, DIST. BIJNOR UP
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22358 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82789&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.