-
Assessee had entered into the lease agreement with the PSIDC on 28.10.1993 for a period of three years upto 31.10.1996. The said lease agreement sufficiently indicates that no landlord / tenant existed between two parties after 31.10.1996. We further find from the arbitration award to this effect dated 28.04.1997 that the assessee had been awarded damages with interst than rental amount of the property in issue.
TALWAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20292 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Benefit of exemption from MAT is provided only for business, as specified, carried on by the persons who have got approvals under the SEZ Act and which are carried on in SEZ or units therein. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that sub-section (6) is to be interpreted independently, thus making the assessee eligible for exemption from payment of MAT also.
M/S GEE CITY BUILDERS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20291 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78617&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, basis of rejection of rejection of accounts by the Assessing Officer was totally erroneous and uncalled for. The Assessing Officer has not given any reason which would fall within the four corners of the ingredients as stipulated u/s. 145 (3) of the Act. Basis of making the addition on the basis of G.P. is also unsustainable, as making the GP addition on the basis of earlier year or future year is not called for when the rejection of books of account was found to be unsustainable.
M/S. GINNI FILAMENTS LTD. VERSUS A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20290 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78618&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the TDS relevant for the period covered by the declaration filed under the IDS is given credit as per the CBDT’s clarification itself, there is no logic as to why advance tax paid for the very same period, which has not been given credit to earlier, should not be adjusted against the amount payable under the IDS. In the case on hand, the declaration of the petitioner pertains to the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16.
ATLURI PURNACHANDRA RAO VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20289 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80225&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have perused the two letters which had weighed with the High Court. Our analysis of the said letters is that, they had been in refutal of the allegations contained in the news items which were published around that time, when the communication was sent by the assessee to the Department with an explanation and a without-prejudice offer.
M/S GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20288 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80228&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of any specific intimation to the Assessing Officer with respect to change in address and/or change in the name of the assessee, the Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notice at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee, more particularly when the return has been filed under EModule scheme.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20287 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80233&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38)/ 68: Bogus LTCG from penny stocks: The fact that a scam has taken place in some penny stocks does not mean that all transactions in penny stocks can be regarded as bogus. In deciding whether the claim is genuine or not, the authorities have to be guided by the legal evidence and not on general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior, modus operandi etc. The AO has to show with evidence the chain of events and live link of the assessee's involvement in the scam including that he paid cash and in return received exempt LTCG gains (Sanjay Bimalchand Jain 89 TM 196 (Bom) distinguished)
Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20286 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 10(38), 68
-
S. 143(2): Mere mentioning of new address in the return of income is not enough. If change of address is not specifically intimated to the AO, he is justified in sending the notice at the address mentioned in PAN database. If the notice is sent within the period prescribed in s. 143(2), actual service of the notice upon the assessee is immaterial
PCIT vs. IVen Interactive Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20285 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
We find force in the contention of the assessee, that the PE constitute in India by the assessee under Phase-II of the contract with JKSPDC did not play any role or contributed in any manner to the execution of the other contracts or earning of FTS under other contracts and cannot thus be said to be involved with any other projects in India.
M/s Lahmeyer International GmbH Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20284 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the AO has accepted the interest cost as part of the project then the same treatment needs to be given even to the interest income by adjusting the same against the part of the project cost as the interest expense and income are inextricably linked.
Adani mining Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20283 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56
-
Quasi-judicial authorities are being respected not on account of their power to legalize injustice on technicalities, rather on account of their power to remove such injustice.
Rudra Construction Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The payment was towards publicity expenses which enabled the assessee to find a sponsor to share the ground and no income deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of Sec.5(2) r.w. Sec.9, also since payee is resident of UAE and does not have PE in India, tax cannot be deductible.
DLF Limited Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20281 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 195
-
CIT(A) had relied on Jurisdictional HC decision in IL & FS Energy Development Company, wherein it was held that CBDT circular 05/2014 cannot override the provisions of section 14A. CIT(A) bound to follow the said decisions as against the CBDT Circular which is an internal guideline and not the law as laid down by the Courts.
Hycron Electronics Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20280 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Since the assessee had already claimed exemption towards the cost of assets as application of income in the year of acquisition, allowing exemption towards repayment of loan (taken for acquiring the said assets) would result in double exemption for the same amount.
Medical Relief Society of South Kanara Vs The Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20279 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Assessing Officer cannot circumscribe himself to a particular section and put blinkers when he during the course of assessment proceedings find that it is taxable under different section. His power to examine the issue encompasses under different sections also including u/s 68.
Prime Comfort Products P Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20278 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
It is of importance that the legislature has used the phrase 'considered and decided' in the past tense. The phrase 'considered and decided' cannot be read as pending consideration in appeal or revision. To do so would be adding and changing the plain language of the statute.
Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-21(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20277 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 154
-
BCCI is allowed to directly make the tax payment in the account of the IT Department on behalf of the assessee, issues mandamus granting extension of 180 days for making payment.
Goa Cricket Association Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20276 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Assessee could not substantiate its claim before the AO, therefore, the AO treated the commission receipt as income of the assessee from salary. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Kanwaljit Singh upheld the action of AO. Before us, the assessee produced ledger account of staff salaries, meeting expenses ledger account, business promotion expenses ledger account, rent and electricity charges ledger account etc.
SHRI JALENDRA SAHOO VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (3) , BHUBANESWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20275 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78530&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Identical issues had come up before the Tribunal in the case of sister RWA of the assessee, namely, Belaire Condominium Association the interest expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for earning such interest income on Bank deposit. As per the Apartment buyers agreement there is an obligation on every buyer to make security deposit and there is corresponding obligation on the society to pay interest on such deposit.
BELVEDERE TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , GURUGRAM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20274 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78535&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a clear case of complete lack of enquiry on the part of the AO which renders the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We note that in the Sale Deed the description of the plot of land has been given with residential plot number situated in a newly developed residential colony, namely, Shanti Nath Nagar-II, Ajmer road, Kekri.
SHRI SHEETAL KATARIA S/O SHRI MOHAN LAL KATARIA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CIT, AJMER.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20273 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78536&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.