-
The provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act cannot apply to a foreign company as the relevant Rule 11U which defines balance sheet was not applicable to a foreign company.
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20396 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viia)
-
CBDT Circular No.6/2016 dated 29th February, 2016 cannot be held prospective in nature, since it is clarificatory in nature.
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20395 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since SDT was less than Rs.5 crores in the relevant year, hence provisions of sec 92BA would not apply.
Yash Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20394 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
Pursuant to the final and binding allotment of the office premises on 03.12.1999, the assessee got vested with the ownership of the rights in respect of the property under consideration.
Suresh Brothers Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-16(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20393 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The mere fact that assessee and his wife are trustees in the trust does not ipso facto prove that they are beneficiaries of this fund nor there is no material on record brought by the Assessing Officer to say that the money was diverted to the trust by the assessee and his wife.
Karuppuswamy Pandiarajan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20392 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Levy of penalty for delayed filing of tax audit report and income tax return. Undoubtedly the Revenue could not find any fault in the income returned by the assessee for the impugned year, despite subjecting it to scrutiny assessment. What emerges from the same is that the non filing of tax audit report and of the return of income by the specified due date was definitely not intentional with the purpose of not disclosing any income for taxation.
SH. BALBIR SINGH CHADHA VERSUS THE CIT (APPEALS) -2, CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20391 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78964&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of law whether the finding of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the NRV as declared by respondent/assessee and was right in not adopting the cost price for computation of closing stock held that the assessee could have adopted the NRV method for valuation of closing stock and whether it is mandatory to value the cost on cost basis, it was held that Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions and observation that closing stock can be valued on cost price or market price, if the market price is less than the cost.
ACIT-1 (1) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20390 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have gone through the record carefully. Jurisdiction in the AO for passing the impugned order on the present issue was being infused by the order of the ld.Commissioner passed under section 263. Once that order was set side, then there is no issue remained to be inquired at the end of the AO. Power to pass fresh assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 with the AO on this issue has been extinguished.
ITO, WARD-5 (2) (3) AHMEDABAD. VERSUS SMT. DARSHINIBEN M. ADANI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20389 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sanction letter issued by the Bank of Baroda, London which is also placed on record by the assessee also reveals that the corporate guarantee was to be given in accordance with the applicable R.B.I. guidelines and it further stipulated that no guarantee commission was payable by Ganesh Shipping Inc. Panama it to the guarantors.
B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 5 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20388 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78969&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act is to be charged, or not, has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of the ‘Radha Mohan Purshottam Das Agarwal’ Group, consisting of nine appeals, on facts exactly similar, mutatis mutandis, to those present in the case of the assessee presently under appeal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assesses.
M/S RADHA MOHAN PURSHOTTAM DAS JEWELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT CC-II KANPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20387 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78973&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The extant issue of deduction for payment of excessive price for purchase of sugarcane, raised in most of the appeals under consideration, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law.
KARMAVEER SHANKARRAO KALE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-3, AHMEDNAGAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20386 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there was no business operation of LD&PL during the period of purchase and sale of shares and astronomical increase of share price of LD&PL which led to returns at 350%, in our opinion, is unjustified.
Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20385 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
It is trite law that the Tribunal is bound by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and has no power to declare any provisions of either the Act or Rules to be invalid or ultra vires.
Nirani Sugars Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20384 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Inadvertent mistake to offer the said income to tax was brought to the notice of the AO, the AO was under obligation to take the necessary steps under section 154 to correct the said mistake in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Since it is not a claim of deduction made by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148.
SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), KOTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20383 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78942&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the appeal order passed under section 47 of the Maharashtra regional and city planning Act,1966, it appeared that there was some construction in the project prior to the amendment proposal in the development plan forwarded by the owner of the land which was rejected by CIDCO vide order dated 18/06/1998.
SHIVAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX–32
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78946&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When an assessee authorizes a counsel to appear on his behalf, such authorization is given by placing faith on the legal expertise of the Counsel and also with the hope that the counsel shall take care of the interest of the assessee. Hence, when there is a lapse on the part of the legal counsel, in my view, the assessee should not be found fault with. Unless done with malafide intentions.
Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20377 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
Like Article 25 of the Indo-USA treaty, treaties with various other countries such as Indo-Denmark, Indo-Hungary, Indo-Norway, Indo-Oman, Indo-US, Indo- Saudi Arabia, Indo-Taiwan also have similar provision providing for benefit of foreign tax credit even in respect of income not subjected to tax in India. However, Indo-Canada and Indo-Finland treaties do not provide for such benefit unless the income is subjected to tax in both the countries.
Tata Consultancy Service Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20376 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Settlement Application: For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, the case continues to be pending with the AO. Therefore, it was open to him to invoke the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act (CIT Vs. ITSC 58 TM 264 & Yashovardhan Birla 73 TM 5 followed, V.R.A. Cotton Mills 33 TM 675 & Shlibhadra Developers 2016 (10) TMI 778 distinguished)
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20375 (HC-P&H)
-
Doctrine of mutuality: A club registered as a 'company' u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place. Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members. The ratio decidendi in Bacha F. Guzdar 27 ITR 1 does not apply to such clubs. When a club supplies goods to its members, there is no "sale" and sales-tax cannot be levied (Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC), Venkatesh Premises Coop Soc 402 ITR 670 (SC) & other imp judgements referred)
State Of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20374 (SC) · Section 25
-
Recall of ex-parte order: A 'power of attorney holder' is an 'agent' and 'Principal Officer' u/s 2(35). If a CA is granted a POA, service upon him of a notice is valid. If a notice is duly served upon the litigant through its authorized representative, and it was provided sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and contest the matter but the litigant choses to let the matter proceed exparte, the order cannot be recalled
PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20373 (SC) · Section 2(35)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.