-
In the case in hand, since the revenue was allowed to take the necessary steps, therefore, the delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal against the legal heir of the deceased assessee has been found to be explained by the revenue due to inadvertent mistake and, therefore, even if the said revised form no. 36 is filed belatedly, the Tribunal is satisfied with the reasons and cause of delay explained by the ld. D/R.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) , KOTA. VERSUS LATE SHRI CHANDI RAM THROUGH L/H SMT. SARLA DEVI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20272 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78537&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the bank has issued bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee there is no principal agent relationship between the bank and the assessee which is a mandatory condition for invoking the provisions contained u/s 194H and in these circumstances, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194H from payment of bank guarantee commission to the bank.
M/S. NAVNIRMAN HIGHWAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 18 (1) , NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20271 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78543&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee did not record any expenditure on this issue in its books for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 and accordingly no deduction was claimed in the preceding year on this score. It was only on the mutual settlement arrived at between the assessee and Kinetic Engineering Ltd. that the assessee depicted the amount of ₹ 124.53 lakh as expenditure and claimed deduction during the year.
KLASSIC WHEELS PVT. LTD., MR. SUNIT MUNOT, M/S. SUMESH INDUSTRIES, VERSUS DCIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20270 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78548&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well-settled that the cardinal rule of interpretation is that the statute must be construed according to its plain language and neither should anything be added nor subtracted therefrom unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature clearly so intended.
L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20269 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(ba)
-
No appeal under the Act from the impugned order is available to the Petitioner, however on detailed perusal of Sec. 264. A revision would lie to the Commissioner of Income Tax from any order passed by the authority subordinate to him in respect of any proceeding under the Act.
Aditya Marine Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) and others.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20268 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 264
-
CIT (A) has set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondent assessee u/s 271(1)(c) while observing that the AO had not been able to establish either any concealment of material fact, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee and the Tribunal has affirmed the said finding of the CIT (A).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20267 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80193&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are of the considered view that it would be reasonable and justifiable if average rate were applied for valuation of closing stock. We find that rate of opening stock was at ₹ 19.15 per kg. whereas closing stock was at ₹ 9.49 per kg. The average realization value is at ₹ 17.75 per kg. therefore, it would meet end of justice if average of 19.15+9.49+ 17.15= 46.14/3 = 15.83 per kg. may be adopted for valuation of closing stock as on 31.03.2010.
M/S. KAMAL OIL INDUSTRIES VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE PATAN, MEHSANA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20266 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78488&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Outstanding demand arising out of issues already decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the earlier AYs cannot be recovered.
Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20265 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
This information is not something new to the AO. There is nothing in the reasons recorded by the AO to suggest that, such investment is bogus. AO's requirement of verifying the genuineness of the investor and of further investigation would fall within the realm of fishing enquiries, which is wholly impermissible in law in the context of reopening of the assessment.
NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(2)(2) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20264 (SC)
-
HC was not right in holding that by the notification/ impugned order, the penal provisions were made applicable retrospectively. Observations made are only for the purpose of examining correctness of interim order & HC should be uninfluenced by the same.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs GAUTAM KHAITAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20263 (SC)
-
The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. We do not see any reason why the petitioner should not get the refund which flows from the order of assessment.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, and ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20262 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The occasion to seek invocation of such an administrative indulgence comes after the AO declines to exercise his powers of granting stay u/s. 220(6), and, perhaps for this reason, it is somewhat inappropriately described as an order u/s. 220(6).
Sale Mohd Padmasee & Co Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20261 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As the predominant object of the assessee is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not lose its charitable character. The surplus derived from running the STD booths, pharmaceutical shops etc. was incidental and ancillary to the dominant object of taking care of physically and mentally challenged persons and uplifting them and enabling them to survive and live in this society. In view of the above discussion we direct the AO to grant benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the assessee.
PASCHIMBANGA RAJYA PRATIBANDHI SAMMILANI VERSUS ADIT (EXEMPTION) -II, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20260 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78454&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of sec. 197A(1A) merely requires a declaration to be filed by the payee of interest and once it is filed, the payer of the interest has not choice except to desist from deducting tax at source from the interest paid. Non-mentioning of PAN in Form No.15G and Form No.15H is only a technical breach, when the payees were having PAN.
THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., BELLARY BRANCH, BELLARY. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20259 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78459&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Disallowance has been made on purely adhoc basis without pointing out any specific defect in the vouchers so maintained by the assessee. There is no finding that the expenses have not been incurred for the purpose of business or expenses are bogus in nature. Unless and until the AO brings out specific defect or gives a specific finding that expenses claimed are bogus in nature or not incurred for the purposes of the business.
M/S J.S. FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD., DELHI ROAD, ALWAR (RAJ.) VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-01, ALWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20258 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78460&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A.O. has specifically recorded the fact in the assessment order that initially in different account of the Investors, the cash have been deposited from where the amount have been transferred to the another accounts of Investors and then transferred to assessee. These informations are specific to show that against the cash, entry have been provided to the assessee by entry providers. Assessee failed to produce any evidence before the authorities below.
M/S. HILLMAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20257 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78462&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has not filed any evidence supporting this claim before us. In the absence of the requisite evidence in support of the claim that the solar generators were purchased, installed, put to use for business and the part payment of the same was also paid during the financial year 2012-13.
M/S. GUPTA SONS VERSUS PR. CIT-1 BHOPAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20256 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78464&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM): Even if the Revenue's theory of the assessee having enabled the clients to claim contrived losses is correct, the Revenue had to bring on record some evidence of the income earned by the assessee in the process, be it in the nature of commission or otherwise. Adding the entire amount of doubtful transactions by way of assessee's additional income is wholly impermissible. The fate of the individual investors in whose cases the Revenue could have questioned the artificial losses is not known
PCIT vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20255 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Taxability of loan waivers u/s 28(iv), 41(1): Argument of Revenue that loan taken from agents/ dealers is on revenue account or that on waiver of the loan, its character undergoes a change and it becomes on revenue account is not correct. S. 28(iv) & 41(1) cannot apply if the loan is on capital account and the assessee has never claimed any deduction therefor in the past (Solid Containers 308 ITR 417 (Bom) distinguished, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 404 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20254 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28(iv), 41
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The valuation of shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials. The substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet
India Convention and Culture Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20253 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.