-
Merely because in the later year, the Assessing Officer takes a different view on the basis of similar material, which may have been collected during such process, would not permit him to reopen the assessment.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL Vs PRECILION HOLDINGS LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20174 (SC)
-
While passing the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act, the assessing officer has categorically stated that this being second default of concealment of particulars of same type of income therefore he was satisfied to impose maximum penalty @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Regarding contention of the assessee that assessing officer has failed to specify charge whether penalty is being imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
KISHORBHAI D IYAVA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2, NADIAD AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20145 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77927&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The first transaction pertaining to cash received by the assessee from his father we are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that the assessee gave this amount to his father after withdrawing the same from his bank account towards purchase of land and due to cancellation of land deal, it was returned to the assessee by his father and same was deposited by the assessee to his bank account. As the land deal was under process and for acquisition of land and the intention of the assessee was to contribute and support his family.
GOURANG CHANDRA NAYAK VERSUS JCIT, RANGE-3, BHUBANESWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20144 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no bar in granting registration to trust, even if the trust has both charitable as well as religious objects no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ALPHA INDIA FOUNDATION
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20143 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79976&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner within one week the reasons recorded for issuance of the impugned certificate fixing the rate of deduction of TDS at 4%. It shall be open to the petitioner to assail the said reasons in case the petitioner is aggrieved thereby.
JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENT CO LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20142 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79981&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute from the record that notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was never issued to the Assessee before initiating of proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his Order dated 13.09.2004 has given several reasons as to why the issuance of such notice was not a prerequisite for initiating of assessment proceedings under Section 158 BC.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS M/S. FOMENTO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20141 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79982&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the investor had not filed its income tax returns, it does not make the entire transactions bogus or the said investor non-existent.
M/s. Hinduja Realty Ventures Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20140 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The services were rendered in Taiwan and utilized in Taiwan and not in India. The payments made towards services rendered outside India for use by the Taiwanese contractor does not constitute FTS u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act.
Kumar Kondiba Shingare Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20139 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
BSE Card is not an asset of the nature referred under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus, depreciation on the said asset is not allowable. On perusal of the working of Client Assistance Charges, we find that it is not the cost per location, per branch which has increased, but the number of branches served by the Bank has increased, which has lead to increase in expenditure which fact the AO has ignored while passing the assessment order.
M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ICICI BROKERAGE SERVICES LIMITED) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20138 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77949&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Grounds on which approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act can be denied to an applicant are specified in Rule 11AA (5) of I.T. Rules which refers to the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of sub section 5 of section 80G of I.T. Act. Nowhere it is the case of the ld. CIT(E) that any of the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the I.T. Act are not fulfilled.
M/S JUST BE FOUNDATION TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20137 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO conducted sufficient inquiry of the impugned transaction and took one of the permissible view provided in the law and therefore Ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. We accordingly quash the order of Ld. CIT u/s 263.
DIPAL PIYUSH PALKHIWALA VERSUS ITO WARD-4 (4) , AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20136 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77954&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee in order to claim that all the expenses claimed and paid to the above parties are genuine has filed ledger account of construction material for all the three years, copy of invoices of all the parties, bank statement through which the payments has been made and the details about the contractor who carried out the work.
JATINKUMAR AMRUTLAL SHAH VERSUS ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -5 (1) AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20135 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issue of whether refund shall be adjusted against interest payable and balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards tax payable has come up for consideration in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer while computing the interest u/s. 244A shall adjust the amount of refund already granted first towards the interest component and balance left, if any, shall be adjusted towards the tax component.
M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS DCIT (LTU) – 2 (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20134 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77948&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The exclusion of a business advance, referred to earlier, i.e., even as the provision speaks of any payment by way of a loan or advance, covering therefore advances of all types, is only on the premise that the said word, read conjunctively with the word ‘loan’, applying the principle of ejusdem generis, should only include payments in the nature of loans, excluding business transactions, which have, as a matter of course, if not necessarily, to be settled by remitting funds; the provision in no manner seeking to impinge on genuine business transactions.
G.G. OILS AND FATS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20133 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77959&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The amount of TDS is always considered as the sum paid by the assessee on behalf of the recipient of the income and, therefore, it cannot be said that the above sum has not been paid by the assessee even while following the cash system of accounting.
Associated Law Advisers Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20132 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 254: We express our pain and anxiety. The Tribunal ought not to have recorded any such concession on the part of the AR contrary to the written submissions. There is no justification on the part of the ld. Members of the Tribunal to record any such concession on behalf of the assessee. In future, if any such concession is made by any AR on behalf of the assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit or at least a written endorsement made on the record of the case duly signed by them, so that no such occasion of taking a stand contra to the alleged concession, would arise before higher Courts
V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20131 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254
-
S. 41(1) (old & unpaid liability for sundry creditors): It is well settled through series of judgments that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased. Such liability cannot be termed as bogus
PCIT vs. Pukhraj S. Jain (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20130 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 41(1)
-
When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. No counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue denying the submission made by the assessee.
SMT. MAGGY SUNNY, PROPRIETRIX, M/S. SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS 916 KERALA SHOWROOM, PAZHAVANGADI VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, KOTTAYAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20129 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77886&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is the duty of the assessee to produce all the bills and vouchers in support of purchase entries found in the books of account. In the absence of the details, the Assessing Officer considered it as bogus purchase. Even before us, the assessee was not able to lead any evidence regarding the genuineness of the purchasers, though the burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
SRI. C. SHAJI C/O. DR. K.P. PRADEEP VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20128 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77889&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The loss incurred in subscribing to chit fund is allowable if funds raised from such chit is utilized for the purpose of business. On this aspect, there is no finding of authorities below. Before us, the assessee has brought certain additional evidences on record in the form of ledger account of various chits as well as copy of bank statements and it is being claimed before us that the money raised through chit was used for the business purpose.
M/S. INDUS STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3 (1) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20127 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77894&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.