-
In the present case the obligation to deduct TDS is on the assessee’s customers and the consequences of non-deduction would be faced by the assessee’s customers. Therefore, in such a case, the legal right if any is of the customer who is required to deduct tax at source.
Quick Heal Technologies Ltd Vs The Union of India & Others
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20338 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
In the present case, there is no possibility of cascading effect nor the issue is involved in group of matters, as such.
S.C.Naregal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20337 (SC)
-
The procedure of filing the return of income cannot bar an assessee from making a claim under the Act which he feels he is entitled to.
Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20336 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has refused admission to any person of the economically weaker section nor the Government has taken any action against the assessee for such violation.
Devki Devi Foundation Vs DIT (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20335 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 12A
-
Recovery of Tax u/s 220(6)/ 245: (i) The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand; (ii) It will be specious & illogical for the Revenue to contend that if an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund can be adjusted u/s 245, on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year (iii) The decisions of CIT(A) & Tribunal in favour of the assessee should not be ignored, (iv) Income-tax officials are officers of the State and the Law requires that they perform their duties with utmost objectivity and fairness, while keeping in mind the sanctity of the role and function assigned to them which at times requires tough steps (Maruti Suzuki Ltd 347 ITR 47 (Del) followed)
Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20328 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections 220(6), 245
-
S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. Addl CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20327 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(7A), 120(4)
-
S. 147/ 154: The AO cannot, after conclusion of proceedings u/s 147, take aid of Explanation 3 to S. 147 to make any addition u/s 154. If the Dept's argument is accepted that u/s 154 the AO is empowered to deal with escapement of income even after the s. 147 assessment is completed, it would empower the AO to go on making one addition after the other by taking shelter of Explanation 3 to S. 147 endlessly. Such a course is not permissible
JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20326 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 154
-
As per material placed on record, we found that the claim is made on account of misappropriation of funds by the ex-director of the company. The said director misused his authority while holding the position and incurred various expenses from the company's funds which were of personal in nature.
CENTRUM BROKING LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T., 4 (1) (1) MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20325 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78739&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CC – 4, NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20324 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78741&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee has received these amounts from these agriculturists and also repaid the same to them in cash. The assessee has filed the affidavits of these three persons wherein they have affirmed on oath that they are not having any PAN or any bank account in their names.
SHRI JOGENDRA SINGH VERSUS ADDL. CIT, RANGE- SIKAR, SIKAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20323 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has been granted FL 9 license under the Abkari Act and the assessee is liable to pay surcharge to the State Government. This surcharge is exclusively levied only on State Government undertaking and the FL 9 license was not given to any undertaking other than the assessee for carrying on business. Being so, the payment was incurred for obtaining specific benefits from the State Government and it cannot be said that there is no element of quid pro quo in the payments.
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), TRIVANDRUM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20322 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78746&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences to establish the carrying out the development work and the claim of expenditure is not found to be excessive in consonance with the development work actually done at site, then the disallowance is uncalled for and the same is deleted.
KRITIKA TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (4), JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20321 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78752&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Irrespective of the nature of the activities of the BCCI (commercial or charitable), what is pertinent for the purpose of determining the nature of the activities of the assessees, is the object and the activities of the assessees and not that of the BCCI. The nature of the activities of the assessee cannot take its colour from the nature of the activities of the donor.
Gujarat Cricket Association Vs Director Of Income Tax (Exemption)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20320 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 11
-
The Applicant Company was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The Applicant - Company chose to let the matter proceed exparte. The assessee failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for recall of the judgment.
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20319 (SC) · Section 68
-
Million dollar circumstance considered by the AO and CIT(A) is that if the existing cash balance has been used for purchasing gold bars, obviously the available cash balance would have decreased, while it has not so decreased, and thus the only possible conclusion is that the gold were purchased from the amounts available with the assessee from undisclosed source, obviously beyond the amount shown in the cash book to be lying with the assesse.
MOTILAL KHATRI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20318 (SC) · Section 69
-
As the assessee did not carry out any business activity in a systematic, recurring and organised manner, nor there was any volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions, and only one person was employed by him for the management and look after of the leased property.
Meeraj Estate And Developers Vs Commmissioner Of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20317 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
In absence of finding that the transaction was sham, the TPO can not treat the transaction as a loan and charge interest thereon on notional basis.
Voltas Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20316 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
By investing huge sum the assessee has obtained a valuable business / commercial right to operate the project facility and collect toll charges. Right acquired by the assessee for operating the project facility and collecting toll charges is an intangible asset.
Essel Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Cir)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20315 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The copy editing, indexing and doing proof reading required only knowledge in the language and it does not require to have necessary expertise in the subject matter of text. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in saying that the services rendered by the non-residents are technical services.
Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20314 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195
-
Interest received is in the nature of Business Income and needs to be netted off against the interest paid to Bank. If the interest paid and earned are considered in totality, the assessee has paid net interest therefore states that AO was not justified in considering the interest income to be non tonnage activity and taxing the same at normal rate.
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20313 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 115VP
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.