-
The occasion to deduct tax at source would not arise. The service providers did not have PE in India. A retrospective amendment cannot cast an obligation to deduct tax when not in force at the relevant time i.e. when payment was made.
KPMG Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20238 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Stay of demand u/s 220(6)/254(2A): The Dept is not right in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfing of Road Agency vs. CBI (AIR 2018 SC 2039) to contend that any stay against recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the SC, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the AO to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances
Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20237 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Service Tax/ GST: The collection of non-refundable deposits by the assessee from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, does not result in the assessee providing management, maintenance or repair service as defined in Section 65(105)(zzg) of Finance Act 1994
CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20236 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Where assessee running a proprietorship concern, took cash loans from her husband carrying on another proprietorship business on account of business exigencies for making payments to labourers and lenders, there being no violation of provisions of section 269SS, impugned penalty order passed under section 271D was to be set aside.
SRI MALLIDI BHUPATHI REDDY VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 RAJAHMUNDRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20235 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78309&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 143(2) states that where a return has been furnished u/s 139, the AO, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not under paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the AO or to produce, or cause to be produced before the AO any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return.
BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 12 (2), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20234 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78311&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Due to peculiar nature of the product and constant mixing and re-mixing of diamonds obtained from AEs and non-AEs, it would not be feasible to maintain records to determine segmental profitability to work out internal TNMM. The undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has carried out certain international transactions during the year with its AE and benchmarked the same using TNMM method in its Transfer Pricing Study which has been accepted by Ld. TPO.
DCIT-5 (2) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. K. GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78315&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee carried on the agricultural activity till 31.03.2008 and subsequently sold the land in plots. Though the assessee has taken permission for conversion of land for plotting into various units, no evidence was brought on record by the AO that the assessee has carried on any developmental activity. The assessee has not incurred any other expenditure except for payment of conversion fees, transport charges, labour charges etc.
NATTA SURYARAO S/O LATE MANGANNA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 TANUKU
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20232 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78318&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec. 43CA (which deems stamp valuation as sales consideration for land and building held as stock in trade) was inserted w.e.f 1.4.2014 and was not applicable for subject AY. In absence of any such statutory provisions giving rise to the deeming fiction, Revenue cannot tax any amount which has not been received by a seller of an immovable property at the time of sale.
ZAIN CONSTRUCTIONS Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(3)(5) & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20231 (SC) · Section 43CA
-
From the penalty order, we find that the assessee has not filed any Explanation before the A.O. except requesting the A.O. to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the assessee’s appeal before the ITAT is disposed of. The AO, however, concluded the proceedings by observing that the assessee has not submitted any explanation to the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 issued u/s 271AAA r.w.s. 274.
JANARDHAN REDDY BEKKERY, HYDERABAD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (PRESENTLY DCIT, CIRCLE – 6 (1) HYDERABAD.)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20230 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78291&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere reflection of certain transaction in Form 26AS is not determinative of holding such transaction as taxable transaction in the hands of the assessee. However, given that the transaction has been reflected in Form 26AS, the onus is on the assessee to demonstrate that such transaction doesn’t represent real income in its hands.
M/S JAIPUR STOCK SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20229 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78294&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The explanation of the assessee is that it was forced to repay the loan in cash on account of business expediency to meet the working capital limits of one the business concern in which he is interested; cannot be considered to be valid explanation for repayment of loan in cash. The fact that assessee accepted loan in cash and repaid the loan in cash goes to prove that there is active collusion with the lender in evading the taxes.
SHRI. P. SUNDARAMURTHY VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20228 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78295&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO cannot remain passive in the face of a claim, which calls for further enquiry to know the genuineness of it. In other words, he must carry out investigation where the facts of the case so require and also decide the matter judiciously on the basis of materials collected by him as also those produced by the assessee before him. AO was statutorily required to make the assessment u/s 143(3) after scrutiny and not in a summary manner as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 143.
DR. BALACHANDRAN NAIR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), TRIVANDRUM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20227 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78279&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the option to determine the fair market value of shares either under the DCF method or the NAV method. The assessee's choice is binding on the AO. While the AO can scrutinize the working, he cannot discard the assessee's method and substitute another method (Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 73 (Bom) referred)
Narang Access Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20226 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 48 Capital Gains: The payment towards discharge of outstanding loan liability out of the sale proceeds of mortgaged property is a mere application of income and not a diversion of sale proceeds by overriding title. The assessee cannot claim such application as deduction for the purpose of computing Capital Gain in terms of s. 48 of the Act. The legal position prevailing prior to SARFAESI Act is also germane even after the enactment of SARFAESI Act
Perfect Thread Mills Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20225 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 48
-
Impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment order had valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer of the assessee and to pass the impugned assessment order.
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED (AFTER MERGER OF SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.) 24 VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-1, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20224 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78238&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee that the value of its shares in terms of clause (ii) of Explanation (a) of section 56(2)(viib) on the basis of the value of its land at market value which is ₹ 113 crores comes to ₹ 658.83 per share. Therefore, it is the submission of assessee that instead of taking the book value of the property at ₹ 47.81 crore as per the balance sheet, the lower authorities should have taken the fair market value of land which was converted from agricultural to institutional at ₹ 113,00,72,749/- and other assets of ₹ 9,17,608/-.
M/S INDIA CONVENTION AND CULTURE CENTRE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-12 (2) , NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20223 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78242&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee had an NRE account in Canara Bank in India. Although the assessee was non-resident earlier, he became a 'Resident and Ordinarily Resident' in the relevant previous year 2014-15. On the interest income earned from NRE FD account of ₹ 1.10 crore, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10 (4)(ii) in the return of income. AO rejected the assessee's claim of exemption and brought to tax and the CIT(A) upheld it.
SHRI BABA SHANKAR RAJESH VERSUS THE ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20222 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78246&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The requirement of commercial expediency should be judged in the context of prevailing socio-economic conditions. Tribunal committed serious error in concluding that the MoU between the assessee & Govt. of Karnataka is opposed to the public policy.
M/S. KANHAIYALAL DUDHERIA Vs THE JCIT, CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20221 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 37(1)
-
The insurance companies are entitled to deduct TDS on the interest payable on the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Mahila Senwati and Others Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20220 (HC-MP)
-
Mere usage of term nodal agency or confirming party would not determine the fact that the assessee was acting on principle to principle basis.
Punjab Infrastructure Development Board Vs CIT-(TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20219 (HC-P&H)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.