-
We have no reason to assume, at this stage, that the Assessing Officer would not undertake the re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law.
Aditi Infrabuild & Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) & Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20500 (HC-DELHI)
-
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.
M/s. Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20499 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 10A, 92
-
Utilisation of share premium amount in paying off loans is irrelevant and there is no provision under Income tax act to tax the same even if there is a violation.
Exind Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20498 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee's method of Revenue recognition based on percentage of completion during the year is in consonance with the well recognised Accounting Standard - 7 issued by the ICAI.
Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt Ltd Vs The Addl.CIT.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20497 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the term export has been explained for the purpose of section 10AA of the I.T.Act, there is no necessity to refer to the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act, 2005.
M/s.Crossings International Distribution Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20496 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 10AA
-
On merits, the case of the assessee deserves to be allowed. Since, there is nothing placed on record by the Assessing Officer or tax authorities to justify the claim that the re - opening was warranted beyond the period of four years.
Shri Keshav Dutt Shreedhar Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20495 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 54
-
Admittedly no services were rendered in India for which the foreign assignment allowance was received by the assessee, the same was not chargeable to tax in India even in terms of the deeming provisions of Section 9(1)(ii), quashes revision u/s. 263.
Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (IT & TP)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20494 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
The windmill is an independent one and can function independently and the expenditure incurred on the new windmill cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Pandian Chemicals Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20493 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In order to bid for mining rights and obtain tenders from the government/local authorities to conduct mining, it is necessary for the bidder to have requisite credentials and past experience in the said field.
Shri Chandra Mohan Gupta Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20492 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20478 (SC)
-
The applicant has a prima-facie case in its favour, insofar as granting of stay against recovery of outstanding demand is concerned, subject to the condition that part of the demand totaling to Rs.20 crores is paid by the applicant.
Fox Networks Group Singapore PTE Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20474 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the AO has raised specific query in respect to bank accounts including overseas investment, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous for the lack of enquiry or proper enquiry.
Mr. Ajay Gopikisan Piramal Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20473 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
So far as the source jurisdiction taxability under the treaty provisions is concerned, legal amendments so as to influence the taxability even under the treaty situation, by the source jurisdictions unilaterally, are impermissible. That will be the end result of a domestic law amendment of an undefined treaty term, in departure from the current position, and import such amended meaning of that term, under article 3(2), in the treaty situations as well.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Thorough and investigative enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer, not only from the assessee, but also from all the concerned persons and hence revisionary powers u/s. 263 cannot be invoked. Proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated in this case apparently on the basis of false, frivolous and baseless allegations with malafide intention of the quarter concerned which were also examined and found not sustainable by the Vigilance Directorate of Income-tax Department.
Smt. Shumana Sen Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20471 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
The scheme of Section 11A of the Act does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie, be: (a) a preliminary determination that the process or activity undertaken in the matter amounts to manufacture; and (b) before arriving at such preliminary determination, any hearing to the concerned person is contemplated.
KRISHNA WAX (P)LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20470 (SC)
-
It would also be an aspect of fairness in tax administration that the assessee is not prejudiced on account of service of an order, through a mode that he did not opt for in the event of an ambiguity in construing the provisions in a taxing statute, it has to take a view that favours the assessee.
FCI OEN Connectors Limited vs. DCIT, ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20469 (HC-KERALA) · Section 144C(2)
-
Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s).
Senior Bhosale Estate Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20468 (SC)
-
Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement and on such basis, it cannot be held that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain.
P.P. Mahatme, Power of Attorney Lorna Margaret Pinto Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20467 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 149(3)
-
AO rejected the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3). Thus once the AO has invoked the provisions of section 145(3), the only course of action left with the AO to proceed with the assessment on best judgment basis and the income of the assessee ought to have been estimated on some reasonable and proper basis. It is also not in dispute that the past history i.e. the GP/NP declared by the assessee is the proper and reasonable basis and guidance for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration.
M/S. CHEMICALS INDIA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20456 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79148&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of stay application before the Tribunal thus normally comes into play only when the demands in question are impugned in appeal before us. That apart, the stay under section 220(6) can only be granted by the Assessing Officer, and not by his supervisory authorities such as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. As a matter of fact, an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, declining grant of stay during the currency of appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A), is only an administrative order.
SALE MOHD PADAMSEE & CO VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 25 MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20455 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79149&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.