-
Once the proceeding u/s 153A is initiated which are special proceedings, the legislature provides different treatments for abated and unabated assessments. However, in respect of unabated assessments the legislature has conferred powers on the AO to just follow the assessments already concluded unless incriminating materials are found in the course of search. It is also pertinent to note that the tax can be levied as per the provision of the Act.
SHRI NARESH J. KOTAK, C/O. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY LLP, MUMBAI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (4), (FORMERLY A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 39) MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20428 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee has filed the return of income on 30.09.2012 and the time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2013 prior to the date of transfer of the case to the AO having jurisdiction and the present AO had issued notice u/s 153C on 23.07.2014. By the time, the case was notified to the present AO, the assessment for the A.Y.2012-13 is unabated. The AO is not permitted to make any addition without having the incriminating material.
BOMMANA RAJKUMAR PROP. M/S BOMMANA RAJKUMAR & CO MAIN ROAD RAJAHMUNDRY VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20427 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The forward foreign exchange contract entered into by the assessee to buy or sell foreign currency at an agreed price at a a future date cannot be considered as a contingent in nature as it creates a continuing binding obligation on the date of the contract against the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 VERSUS M/S. HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20426 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80373&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of this section would reveal that the expression receive employed in this clause would indicate that the assessee should have actually received the amounts, and not a notional one, because in various authoritative pronouncements it has been construed that the amounts should have been actually received. Since assessee has not received actual consideration, it has only received cheques which have not been encashed.
Luxmi Foodgrains P.Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20425 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
If the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners under the Act is allowed, it would knock down the very basis of the prosecution against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings may be ordered to be kept in abeyance.
Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20424 (HC-KERALA)
-
Assessee's claim seeking treaty benefit should not be entertained as assessee had not made any claim by way of valid return.
Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20419 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The shareholding of the assessee in his individual capacity could neither be clubbed with the holding of his HUF nor with the holding in his capacity of the Executor of the Estate.
ACIT Vs Shri. Prem Sagar
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20418 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
S. 56(2)(viia) cannot apply to a foreign company as Rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines "balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company. If the computation provisions cannot apply, the charging section cannot apply. The amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 is prospective in nature (B. C. Srinivasa Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC), Palai Central Bank Ltd (1985) 1 SCC 45 followed)
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20417 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viia)
-
S. 68/ 69C: Bogus share capital + Bogus purchases: Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature. On merits, all investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds. AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds. As regards bogus purchases, the AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20416 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 68, 69C
-
It is not in dispute that the assessee surrendered a sum of ₹ 30.00 lacs on account of incriminating material found during the search, therefore, the transaction of loan between two independent parties even if through the service of the assessee being broker cannot be thrust upon the assessee for want of taxing the same in the hands of the actual parties to the transaction.
SHIV PRAKASH BAJAJ VERSUS D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20415 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79027&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso.
M/S. SHARDLOW INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 6 (1), CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20414 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79029&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer.
SEEMA SUBHASH ZAMBAD VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20413 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79032&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue is not justified in relying upon Section 132B to retain the asset, when admittedly, as on date there are no arrears of tax due from the petitioner and that the assessment for 2013-14 is not yet completed and the liability is arrived.
Padam J.Challani Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20409 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 132B
-
HC had firmly rejected petitioner's plea of hostile discrimination as the provision is applicable only to resident taxpayers and it does not apply to domestic companies and non-residents and this HC order is being held.
RAJAN BHATIA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20407 (SC)
-
The credit worthiness of the transaction cannot be said to be proved merely on the strength of the bank statement or identity of the creditor. The assessee did not produce the income tax return of the lender or any confirmation.
Siddharth Exports Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20406 (HC-DELHI) · Section 68
-
It is axiomatic that provisions of Section 194C would apply to a contract for work and not to a contract for sale.
TIMES VPL LTD. THE CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20404 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 194C, 40(a)(ia)
-
Advance given by a company to another company in ordinary course of business is not deemed dividend for assessee-individual holding more than 20% shares in both the companies. As long as the dividend is referred to in Sec.115-O, it will be exempted from tax u/s 10(34). If Section 10 (34) stipulates that dividend is not taxable, the Settlement Commission cannot tax the same.
R Chitra Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20403 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The A.O who passed the assessment order does not possess valid jurisdiction/authority in absence of separate order u/s 120(4)(b).
Shri Kishore Vithaldas Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20399 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 120(4)(b)
-
The assessee would be eligible for benefit of deduction u/s 54F towards the independent houses received provided other conditions stipulated in the act are fulfilled.
Sri Potla Nageswara Rao Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20398 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Royalty paid to foreign company for merely acquiring right to use the technical know-how whereas the ownership remained with the foreign company, shall be allowed as business expenditure.
Heidelberg Cement India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20397 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.