-
Effect of dismissal of SLP: It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger
P. Singaravelan vs. District Collector
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20681 (SC)
-
There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury.
Universal Cables Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20675 (SC) · Section 244A
-
S. 244A: Interest on refund is compensation for unauthorized retention of money by the Department. When the collection is illegal & amount is refunded, it should carry interest in the matter of course. There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury. The Department is directed to pay interest as prescribed u/s 244-A at the earliest (UOI vs. Tata Chemicals 363 ITR 658 (SC) followed)
Universal Cables Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20664 (SC) · Section 244A
-
S. 147 reopening for bogus purchases & accommodation entries: The omission of the AO to make an assertion in the reasons that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment is sufficient to set aside the reassessment notice. Also, a notice issued on change of opinion is bad
Usha Exports vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20663 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 68/ 69C: In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition can be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of lower GP declared by the assessee in respect of bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases
Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20662 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 69
-
If for any reason, the assessee fails to appear before the CIT(Appeals) after receipt of notice of hearing, it is open to the CIT(Appeals) to dispose the appeal on merit after re-appreciating the material available on record, including the assessment record.
ETA Star Tech City Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20661 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In case if the giving effect order has already been passed by the AO, even then the doors of the assessee are left open that these items can be adjudicated on merits even in appellate proceedings.
L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20660 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Imposing penalty u/s. 272A(2)(K) of the Act was passed on 05.12.2013 making the penalty order null and void as it was passed after insertion of the second proviso to section 272A of the Act.
Blue Star Construction Co Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Tax TDS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20659 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 272A(2)(k)
-
Assessee is directed to raise its grievance before the appellate forum in case the assessee felt that there has been an infraction of the procedure, or the principles of natural justice in the matter of framing of the reassessment order.
M/S ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LTD Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20658 (SC)
-
The circulars sought to be relied on by the Appellant virtually refer to the power of the Assessing Authority or such other higher authorities of the Department and not the power of the Appellate Authority/Quasi- Judicial Authority deciding the merit of the appeal/I.A. for stay.
Amolak Singh Bhatia Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20657 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
The limitation of six years under Section 149, must be alive on the date of passing of the order of CIT (A). In the present case since, as on 05.10.2011, the time limit for reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 had not lapsed, the order of the ITAT was well within the limitation.
INTEC CORPORATION Vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 31(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20651 (HC-DELHI) · Section 150
-
The SC decision in Sovereign Securities Pvt Ltd relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable to the assessee's case since in that case the AO had held that the conditions of Sec.36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act were not satisfied, which was not the case of the assessee.
Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20650 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Rules of procedure have been construed to be the handmaiden of justice. The purpose of assessment proceedings is to assess the tax liability of an assessee correctly in accordance with law.
DALMIA POWER LIMITED & ANR Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20646 (SC) · Section 139(5)
-
The payment in the present case is online and the credit to the Government's account is instant. The Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules, 1983 do not apply to payments online but are applicable to payments made by cheques.
M/s. Moody’s Analytics Knowledge Services (India) Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20645 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 201(1A)
-
Assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 194A(3)(v).
The Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited and others Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20638 (HC-KERALA) · Section 194A(3)(iii)(a)
-
ITAT is directed to advert to the written submissions filed by the petitioner at the time of final adjudication of the pending appeal, including additional ground permitted to be raised before it.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs MARIJTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20637 (HC-DELHI)
-
Pr. CIT could not set aside the order for alleged non-compliance with provision of law which no longer existed in the statute as on the date of order.
Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20636 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Sections 263, 40A(2)(b)
-
Since, the basic facts are not disputed and the assessee gained from its capital rights, as pleaded by the assessee, the gain which arose out of the transaction is assessable under the head long term capital gains only.
Shri Narayan Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20635 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 54
-
ITAT - The unintentional lapse on the part of a litigant should not normally cause the doors of the judicature permanently closed before him.
Krishan Kumar Amla Vs Asst. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20625 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
ITAT - Benefit of sec.54F before its amendment vide Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 can be extended to a residential house purchased outside India.
Shri Harvinder Singh Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20624 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.