-
Appeal u/s 246A reg denial of liability to pay buy-back tax u/s 115QA: The expression “denies his liability to be assessed” in s. 246A takes within its fold every case where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act. It is not confined to the liability to be assessed u/s 143(3) but applies also to the liability to pay tax u/s 115QA. If there is adequate appellate remedy, a Writ Petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained (Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC) & Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) followed)
Genpact India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20542 (SC) · Sections 246A, 115QA
-
The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is beyond doubt that the income in question has actually accrued to the taxable entities on the Netherlands, which, according to the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, is sine qua non for tax treaty protection. It would thus appear that the treaty protection has indeed been wrongly declined to the assesse.
ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The liability to pay the revised price had accrued during the relevant A.Ys when GAIL had intimated the likely revision of the price and only date of the payment thereof was uncertain and therefore, the provision has to be allowed as per the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assesse. There is an implicit obligation of the assessee to pay the revised price, the liability of the assessee to pay at the revised price is an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability as held by the Revenue.
A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20537 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 37
-
Annual listing fees paid to stock exchange is an admissible business deductible expenditure.
DCIT Vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20536 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Depreciation was allowable both on the excess amount paid towards goodwill and non compete agreement.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income- tax (OSD) Vs M/s.Dorma India Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20535 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Aforesaid explanation of the assessee safely falls within the sweep of a plausible explanation, which had not been dislodged or disproved by the revenue till date, therefore, he could not have justifiably been saddled with levy of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) in respect of the said amount and accordingly deletes the penalty levied .
Shabbir E. Boxwala Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20534 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The transaction of subscription to the chits is independent of the earlier transaction of loans borrowed and there is nothing on record to show that both the transactions are interconnected.
The Assistant Director of Income Tax Vs M/s. Sree Gokulam Educational and Medical Trust
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20533 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Sections 11, 11(5)
-
Sec.271AAB(2) specifically excludes the application of Sec.271(c).
Shri Sunil Ravindranath Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20532 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Sections 271AAB, 271(1)(c)
-
Revision of order u/s 263 by the CIT in March 2017 as regards the issue of allowability of Accountants rick policy premium was barred by limitation.
M/S. PRINCE WATER HOUSE Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-8, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20531 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 263
-
The loose parchas found during search, could lead to a presumption, but the Department cannot draw inference unless the entries made in the documents, so found are corroborated by evidence.
Ajay Gupta Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Meerut And Another
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20530 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 132(4A)
-
Even in case of limited scrutiny assessment, the AO is duty bound to make a prima facie inquiry as to whether there are any other items which requires examination and in the event, the potential escapement of income would have exceeded Rs.10 lakh, he ought to seek the permission of the CIT / DIT to convert a limited scrutiny assessment to a complete scrutiny assessment.
M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20527 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
To come within the ambit of export u/s. 10AA, the assessee must directly export the goods out of India. Since sales were not directly exported by the assessee out of India but were sold to other SEZ Units, therefore such sales could not be included in export turnover as per the definition provided u/s 10AA.
Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20526 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10AA
-
S. 92 Transfer Pricing: Even if an assessee is eligible for tax exemption at the rate of hundred percent under section 10A/10B of the Act, then also the arm’s length price on international transactions deserve to be determined under section 92C of the Act (all imp judgements referred)
Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20519 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 92
-
Merely because Public Sector Undertaking and Nationalised Banks are considered as State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it does not follow that the employees of such Public Sector Undertaking, Nationalised Banks or other institutions which are classified as State assume the status of Central Government and State Government employees.
KAMAL KUMAR KALIA & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20518 (HC-DELHI)
-
The LTCG booked by assessee were bogus & a major part of accommodation entries scheme.
SUMAN PODDAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20517 (SC)
-
The doctrine of impossibility becomes relevant here too. If the assessee is aware of the obligations of the Statute for paying AMT in the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee would not have taken of this project at all in the year 2007. Alternatively, the assessee would have followed a project completion method thereby he would be have planned to the taxation as per the then existing provisions of the Act.
M/s. Vikram Developers & Promoters Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20510 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Contingencies for filing appeal before CIT(A) as listed in clause (ii) and (iii) of Sec 246A arise out of assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144 but the contingency in Sec 246A(i) is a standalone postulate and is not dependant purely on the assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144.
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20504 (SC) · Section 115QA
-
In order to avoid the 'pitfall', law officers need to bring to the notice of their respective heads rulings which meet the criteria laid down by Lindley - 1.it must introduce a new principle, 2.modify an existing principle, 3.settle a disputed or uncertain issue, 4.or particularly instructive, and states that such a sharing of knowledge will definitely go a long way in improving the quality of adjudication.
City Union Bank Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20503 (HC-MADRAS)
-
No question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, rejected.
Honda Motors Co. Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation -3
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20502 (HC-DELHI)
-
Though the return was filed, there was nothing done by the Department on the same especially since six years had elapsed by the time the return was filed. It cannot be said that the income that was added on to the assessee had already suffered capital gains tax at the hands of the mother.
Harris Joseph Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax II
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20501 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.