-
Since sale of shares at face value was by mutual understanding and by consent of all directors because Amit Indubhushan Bakshi was instrumental in getting the investor who contributed allot for benefit of company. We do not find any illegality in transfer of shares at face value i.e. Rs. 10 per share.
Shri Rakesh Bhikhabhai Shah Vs Pr. CIT-1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Where the assessee has followed mercantile system of accounting and distributing the liability to pay to sales tax and not making provision in its books of accounts particularly when the demand raised on the basis of the sales made during the accounting year the assessee entitled to deduct the amount of sales tax on the basis of the liability incurred and even in the absence of entries in the books of accounts, the same is admissible.
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. – GSEGL VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHNAGAR RANGE, GANDHINAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81514&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji, has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay.
MS. SEENA DEEPAK VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20899 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81515&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Only an acceptance of it’s liability to deduct and deposit income-tax on the perquisite to its’ employees and, rather, doing so, would operate to save the assessee of it’s liability to tax u/s.115WA(1). The facts of the case are admitted and borne out by the record, being admittedly the same as for AY 2006-07, as is the position of law for both the years. The assessee does not admittedly accept its’ liability to deduct and deposit tax at source on the said benefit.
MADHYA PRADESH POORV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., JABALPUR VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20898 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81517&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assesee ex-parte for non appearance of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as in disposing of penalty appeals, when the quantum appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A).
BHARAT R. RUIA (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-47 MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81518&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The CIT(A) has also gone through the case and restricted the bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% of ₹ 1,97,383/- i.e.24,672/-. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has no objection to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Anyhow, on seeing the facts and circumstances, it seems quite justifiable to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. We nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) in question.
ACIT-27 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RASHMIKANT V. SHAH 310/12, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20896 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81519&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the respondent assessee has disclosed additional income of ₹ 12 Crore during the course of settlement, it cannot be said that Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1961. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commission, it is apparent that the application submitted by the respondent has been dealt with as per the provisions of section 245C and 245D of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 1 VERSUS SHANKARLAL NEBHUMAL UTTAMCHANDANI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20895 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81916&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20894 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 226(3)
-
(i) 56(2)(vii)(b): The amendment w.e.f AY 2014-15 will not apply to a purchase transaction of immovable property for which full consideration is paid pre the amendment. Mere registration at a later date will not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The Revenue is debarred to cover the transaction where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged (ii) Interest u/s 234A & 234B is chargeable with reference to the returned income and not the assessed income
Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20893 (ITAT-RANCHI) · Sections 234A, 234B
-
S. 83 CGST Act: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the power is not to be routinely exercised. S. 83 confers power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard Govt revenue but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power u/s 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power. If proceedings are launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person cannot be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued u/s 70 to him.
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20892 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It cannot be stated that the decision of the Tribunal is an elaborate one but on the reading of the decision it is seen that the reference is made to all the relevant facts which are necessary to make distinction between a Income from Business and the Income from House Property.
City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20891 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Sec.43A are applicable when assets are acquired from outside India, thus AO's invocation of Sec.43A is rejected.
Hueco Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20890 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43A
-
Since participation fees for attending seminar is not taxable in India, the question of TDS on aforesaid payment does not arise. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(I) is deleted.
Roche Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20889 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 195
-
The excess expenditure over income can be carried forward for setting off against income of subsequent years.
Improvement Trust Fatehabad Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20888 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
-
Assessee has demonstrated from the records that all the requisite details were submitted to the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee in commodity trading activity. In our view, merely because the brokers had not appeared in response to the summons sent by the Assessing Officer that itself cannot be the sole ground to reject the entire evidence produced by the assessee.
M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VERSUS M/S KHURANA ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20887 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81458&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penal provisions must be strictly construed and only on satisfaction of conditions specified therein, the penalty can be levied. In the instant case, the assessee has not been found to be recipient of salary income during the course of search. The assessee is an individual deriving salary and interest income and not required to maintain books of accounts.
SH. YASH BHATIA VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20886 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81460&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Value of the assets taken over by the company should be considered as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains under the Act. In this case, the full value of consideration is ₹ 2,70,69,200/-. This is also, the cost of acquisition of assets. As the cost of acquisition and the full value of consideration received on sale are the same figure, no capital gains has accrued or was received by the assessee.
RAVI JALAN VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20885 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81462&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is because the time permitted under the statute for selecting the case under scrutiny was up to 30 September 2012 but there was no notice issued for the scrutiny assessment. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order in the case of Krishna Kumar Singhania Vs. DCIT wherein unless there was no any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to concluded year 2009-10.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4) AHMEDABAD VERSUS INDIA RETAI L PRODUCT PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20884 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81463&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing but the assessee has not produced any evidences before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Assessing Officer to corroborate those statements that the assessee company was engaged in providing only accommodation entries. The assessee-company has not provided any affidavits from the beneficiary companies to support its claim of being engaged in providing accommodation entries.
ITO, WARD-14 (4), NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. KULDEEP TEXTILES (P.) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20883 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the applicant is directed to abide by the provisions of Sec.139AA and subsequently the petition challenging the validity of Aadhar Act succeeds, it would not be possible to turn the clock back as the applicant would be required to provide all the necessary information for obtaining an Aadhaar card and the claim of privacy of the applicant would be lost for all times to come.
Bandish Saurabh Soparkar Vs Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20882 (HC-GUJARAT)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.