-
The power to suspend an order of conviction should be exercised only in exceptional cases. I am not inclined to accept the instant application for stay on conviction which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs Union of India through CBI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20761 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Paragraph 7(3) GDR Scheme provided for considering the price of share as prevailing in the stock exchange on the date of advice as the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the provision specifically refers to a particular price and not the weighted average price as adopted by the revenue authorities.
Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund Vs Addl. DIT (IT)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20760 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When there are material evidences to substantiate that the shares were issued to foreign investors, and the conversion of the share was in accordance with the terms of issue of the preference shares appropriately justified with the fair valuation, there is no case treating such an issue / conversion as a means of tax avoidance.
Brand Marketing India (P) Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20759 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(1)
-
Entire assessment order is devoid of any reference to the statement of Shri S.K. Gupta. It is not known as to what question Shri S.K. Gupta said that M/s CFAM Soft Pvt Ltd and M/s BT TechNet Ltd. were providing accommodation bills. Further, we find that the entire transactions have been done through A/c payee cheques and it is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant has purchased the accommodation bills by making payments through cheques and receiving cash through back door.
INTEGRATED GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD [FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPICE GLOBAL PVT LTD VERSUS THE A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE – 9, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20758 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81170&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No clarification to the doubts in the mind of the learned Assessing Officer as to the genuineness of the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants or genuineness of the transaction. Unless and until satisfactory answers are obtained to these questions, it would be difficult to reach a positive conclusion as to the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS APJ CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20757 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81171&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
So long as the view taken by the AO is a possible view, the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner u/s 263 merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.
M/S. ASIAN HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PR. CIT-9, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20756 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81175&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is for the Court to declare what a particular provision of the Statute states and not go by what the Executive has or has not stated. The procedure set out under Section 144C is a mandatory procedure and thus, in any case where the said procedure has not been complied with by the Assessing Authority, such assessment would be liable to be set aside.
M/S. VEDANTA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V (4), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -III, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20755 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81782&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is really no necessity to examine the relevant provisions of law or the merits of the claims of the petitioners since there is a more fundamental aspect of the matter that appeals, the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from the fact that the two orders of assessment are entirely identical, word to word, except for the differences in the figures in the computation, there is nothing in the order itself to indicate that the petitioners have been put to notice of the proposals for assessment prior to finalization thereof and this aspect of the matter is really not disputed or contested by the revenue.
M/S. MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, M/S. VISION RESEARCH FOUNDATION VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20754 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81783&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand the assessee was granted a lease of certain areas for mining of Mica for twenty years. The mines were earlier worked out by other companies for a period of fifteen years. The question was whether the expenditure for acquiring the leasehold rights were on revenue or a capital account. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the lease was a long term lease and it conferred right to excavate mica, that is to remove it, grade it and pay royalty to the government in accordance with the quality of mica extracted and thus, was a revenue expenditure.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GOA. VERSUS ZUARI INDUSTRIES LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20753 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81784&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the assessee is into the business of diamond trading. The profit element in diamond trading is around 2 to 3% depending upon nature of trade. Even, the BEP had recommended profit percentage of 2% in case of trading and 3% for manufacturers.
STERLING JEWELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT-5 (3) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20752 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As before us no evidence were lead to show that the directors of the company Mr. Pankaj Jain and Mrs. Vaishali Jain are capable of obtaining such a huge orders of export of maize for assessee. Their biodata or their credentials were also not shown that they have any experience in the commodity market.
KS COMMODITIES PVT LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-14 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20751 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81129&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Liability of the assessee to pay at the revised price is an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability as held by the Revenue. The assessee was liable to pay the revised charges w.e.f. 1.12.2008 but the revised charges were not finalized though the maximum price which could be revised or increased was mentioned in the communication from GAIL. DR’s submissions that the price is fixed by the Govt. is also strictly not correct.
ANDHRA PRADESH GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20750 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81133&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Land deal in question was made by the appellant. Mis SMV agencies is also a company in the same group and the entire management is made by the aforementioned two persons. There is no doubt that a substantial amount of on money was paid and these amounts are clearly written in cash in the papers referred to supra.
CHARMINAR BOTTLING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 8 (1) , HYDERABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20749 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81134&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount. The expenses have been looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully.
M/S. MULTITUDE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 17 (1) NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20748 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81135&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest so earned thus was received by REC as well as all the Implementing Agencies including the assessee-company for and on behalf of the Government of India, Ministry of Power and since the same was to be used for cost of the project by way of adjustment in the last instalment of capital subsidy.
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (2), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20747 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81139&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We cannot understand as to how the payment of EDC-being in the nature of statutory fees, could be subject to withholding tax under Section 194 of the Act, a provision that is applicable to dividends. The nature of dividend payment is intrinsically different from EDC and, therefore, the apparent reason for reopening seems to be erroneous, irrational and fallacious.
BPTP LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20746 (HC-DELHI)
-
The Tribunal has merely referred to the decision of the Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and has not adverted to the facts of the case. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the issue whether the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act applies to the fact, situation of the case and whether the tax was required to be deducted at source under Chapter 17B.
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20745 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
The Revenue authorities did not dispute the fulfilment of conditions of Sec. 35AD or that the business is a specified business or the incurrence of expenditure for construction of the hotel. Once the conditions of Sec.35AD are fulfilled, the section, per se, not requiring any specific date of operation, the deduction thereunder cannot be disallowed.
Benares Hotels Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20744 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section 35AD
-
The losses resulting from CCM can be classified in different categories based on the extent and magnitude of modification of the client code, directs AO to delete additions w.r.t category 'Distance 1' - genuine error in punching of client codes of only one digit and category 'Distance -2' - since the modification resulted in shifting of profits/losses in both the ways resulting in it being detrimental to the assessee and confirms additions w.r.t other 2 categories.
Amitkumar Amulkhrai Shah HUF Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20743 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Merely because the assessee was successful in completing the paperwork very meticulously or bringing into existence certain documents, the statutory obligation of the authorities does not get absolved merely because the assessee produced certain documents. It is incumbent on the authorities to verify the genuineness of such documents also in the light of the attending circumstances.
Income-tax Officer Vs APJ Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20742 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.