-
Shri Muneesh Kumar, DDIT (Inv) II, Raipur, has mentioned that Shri Subhash Sharma of Raipur is known to be a close associate of Amolak Singh Bhatia group and therefore, he is proposed to be included in the search. Similar observation in respect of other liquor contractors of the State is also mentioned in the note sheet concluding that in the light of above, on the basis of information gathered during discrete enquiries.
SUBHASH SHARMA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR, UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION RAIPUR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20781 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81798&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The phrase Reasons to Believe does not mean that the AO should have ascertained the facts by legal evidence. All that is required is that, the AO should prima facie have some material on the basis of which there should be reasons to believe of certain incomes chargeable to tax escaping assessment. There need not be any concrete evidence or proof available for coming to a final conclusion.
SANJAY AGRAWAL VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, RAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20780 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81801&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by the AO on account of alleged excess share premium was unjustified when those very shares were sold in the next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non-resident buyer and further there was no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) was liable to be deleted.
Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20779 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The reason why there is difference in apportionment between the Assessee and the revenue is because of inclusion of STCG earned by the Assessee on his own without the services of the PMS provider has also been included by the revenue in the income generated through the services of PMS providers.
Smt. Sudha Narayanamurthy Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20778 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Even otherwise, it has been held that financial stringency would not justify the non remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government.
KBR Infratch Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20777 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 221
-
On a reading of the impugned order passed by the AAR, it is evident that the said findings are only prima facie, which means, that they are not final and binding, and that they have not been arrived at after detailed examination of the materials placed before the authority or upon consideration of the rival submissions.
ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20776 (HC-DELHI)
-
The daughter and member of the HUF have given money for certain specific purpose. The source and genuineness of the loan has been accepted by the AO. The cash loans in question therefore cannot be said fall within the mischief of Sec.269SS of the Act as near relatives cannot be said to be “Other person” within the meaning of Sec.269SS of the Act. In any event in the circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash. We, set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and cancel the penalties levied u/s. 271E/271D.
MR. MOHAMMADYUSUF R. DARGAD VERSUS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, HUBBALLI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20775 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81216&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that the assessee had paid the impugned retention money as per the terms and conditions of the corresponding agreement with the other parties. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Chainrup Sampatram vs CIT settled the law long back that although anticipated losses can be allowed to be deducted from commercial proceeds at the first sign of its reasonable probability, the converse is not true regarding anticipated profits to be treated as income unless the same are realized going by the principles of conservatism and commercial prudence.
ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20774 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81213&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The organization to which the assessee paid interest viz., Karnataka Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board was an entity falling within section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and therefore there was no obligation on the part of assessee to deduct tax at source on payment of interest to the aforesaid organization.
STATE BANK OF INDIA [FORMERLY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE] , COX TOWN BRANCH VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16 (2), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20773 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81212&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
At the outset, it is to be noted that the Explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) is relevant only when there is a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act carried out after 1st June, 2007 and consequently during the course of search and seizure action if assessee is found to be owner of money, bullion, jewellery and other valuables or any income based on the entries in the books of account etc.
SHRI RAJENDRA SHRINGI VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20772 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81209&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 54B of the Act requires the assessee to purchase any other land for being used for agricultural purposes within a period of two years from the date of the sale from transfer of the capital being land. In view of the clear provisions, investment made by any other person particularly the spouse of the assessee, cannot be entitled for deduction under section 54B of the Act.
SHRI RANDHIR SINGH, KIRTI KARAN GOEL & ASSOCIATES VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KARNAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20771 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81208&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The circle rate of the proportionate land occupied for the rear portion will work out to ₹ 1,69,35,765/-. Further, circle rate of per sq. mtr for the construction would be ₹ 17,400 per sq. mtr which worked out to ₹ 36,37,122/- and accordingly, the actual circle rate as per the Government Notification as on 31.03.2013 would be at ₹ 2,05,72,887/- as compared to the book value of the impugned property which has been taken at a much higher figure, i.e., ₹ 3,37,63,104/-.
SWASTIK BUILD SOLUTIONS P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-22 (4), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20770 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81207&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Fundamental premise is now shaken, since Moral has been found to be a completely tainted entity embroiled in very large scale dubious transactions of providing accommodation entries. If the transactions undertaken by SIPL with Moral are indeed not genuine, as now reasonably believed by the AO, it would not be correct to say that SIPL had disclosed fully and truly all the material facts for its assessment for the relevant assessment year.
Vedanta Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20769 (HC-DELHI)
-
If you go through the provisions, it may be seen that normal and additional depreciation are two separate deductions available to the assessee and both are independent and cumulative.
M/ s Welspun Corp Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20768 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
On mere reading of provisions of Section 54 of the Act, it would be clear that statute has not laid down condition for the assessee in order to get the benefit of Section 54 of the Act, the actual sale consideration received on sale of original asset should be utilized for acquisition of new house property.
RAJYASHREE SHYAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 18 (1) CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20767 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81184&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A plain reading of Sections 51 and 43(6) of the Act in a harmonious manner, and keeping in mind learned CIT(A)’s finding that assessee has indulged in dubious transaction of claiming forfeiture, it would show that the amount involved has been correctly reduced from the value of assets of the assessee. It is settled law that revenue authorities are not supposed to put on blinkers.
THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS ACIT (LTU) , MUMBAI AND DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI VERSUS THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20766 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81187&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from investigation wing regarding alleged accommodation entries and it has been held by jurisdictional Delhi High Court that mere information received from DDIT(Inv) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that A.O. had independently applied his mind to arrive at a belief that the income had escaped assessment.
M/S GIGGLE INFOTECH PVT. LTD., C/O D. OSTWAL AND ASSOCIATES VERSUS ITO, WARD 10 (1), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20765 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81190&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, not defaulted in the filing of a return of income. Thus, the only condition to be satisfied by the revenue would be the establishment of the fact that there has been a failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material particulars. Adverting to paragraph 8 of this order setting out the reasons for re-assessment, I note that items (i) and (ii), have, admittedly, been considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order under Section 263 dated 26.03.2010.
M/S. MOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20764 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81788&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The grant of approval would only require a satisfaction of the Officer in regard to the existence of the University and the avowed objects. The question of whether the Society has, in fact, complied with the statutory provisions strictly is a matter of assessment and would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment itself. Respondent has, in the impugned orders adopted a view that is premature and Writ Petitions are allowed.
HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING TRAINING CENTRE, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -III, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20763 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81789&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present issue that has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that once the Appellate Tribunal had determined profit on the basis of net profit basis @ 8% of the contract value, it was no longer open for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to re-do computation on the 12.5% of net profit.
MANDA BUILDERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1) BIKANER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20762 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81790&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.