-
The assessee can object to the reasons recorded after filing the return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148, and where so, the AO is bound to dispose the said objections per a speaking order prior to proceeding further in the matter. The assesseee in the present case has not raised any objection to the reason/s for issuing the notice u/s. 148 even till the date of the assessment.
LATE OM PARKASH GUPTA, [THROUGH LRS RAJ MOHINI GUPTA & ORS] VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2), JAMMU
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20086 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77684&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is not carried out any activity of construction or development of projects but the assessee is in the activity of converting the stone blocks into aggregate which is used in the construction unit. Therefore, the assessee is not a civil contractor but supplying the construction material to other companies engaged in the construction/infrastructure activity.
THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. VERSUS M/S SHREE BALAJI ENTERPRISES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20085 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77689&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Specific unretracted admission of the assessee of earlier undisclosed income and discrepancies in the books of account, we hold, is without any doubt the best piece of evidence against the assessee and is incriminating material enough representing undisclosed income for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. The assessee had himself admitted to the fact of having not disclosed the income on account of brokerage and commission earned and had himself admitted to the fact that there were discrepancies and unrecorded entries in his books of account and also certain rough notings and estimates. Having himself admitted to all these facts and at no point of time having ever retracted this admission, the same constitutes incriminating material against the assessee.
SH. VISHAL SINGAL, SMT. SUNITA SINGAL VERSUS THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20084 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77688&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Voluntary payments made by parent company to its loss making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of assessee company. It was further held that if that is so, then the payment in question could not be held to be revenue receipts, hence they were capital receipts in the hands of assessee.
NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, PUNE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20083 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Local Committee, after considering the complaint filed by the petitioner, formed an opinion that the assessments for the subject matter Assessment Years cannot be termed as high pitched. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, the mechanism provided to approach the Local Committee is not in lieu of the appellate remedy.
CARUNA BAL VIKAS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, CHAIRMAN C&S, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LOCAL COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH TAX PAYERS GRIEVANCES FROM HIGH PITCHED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20082 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79875&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The investigation carried out by the Department has brought the facts on record that the shares prices have been manipulated artificially, which purchased by a set of accommodation entry provider companies controlled by cartel of brokers, entry operator etc. In such circumstances, to say that sale transactions on the stock exchange were made in uncontrolled manner, will be on only an idealistic view and away from the reality of the market.
Shri Satish Kishore Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20081 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the legal position clarified by the Courts have retrospective effect, it can be inferred that such legal position was always the correct position of law and was always prevailing. Though the order was passed by AO & CIT(A) initially was not in contravention of legal position existing therewith, it was in contravention of legal position clarified by SC. It can be said that the mistake was a patent mistake, and which was apparent from the record very much rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act.
Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20080 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 154
-
Making of an Investment and incurring of expenses are two different aspects and the same are not found to be either overlapping or interchangeable. We are of a strong conviction that the A.O in the garb of scrutinising the investment made by the assessee in property could not have traversed beyond that and adverted to issues pertaining to incurring of the expenses in respect of the said property.
R. & H. Property Developer, Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax -11
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20079 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
Income generated from leasing mall premises in the hands of the assessee (engaged in leasing and operating malls) constitutes business income and not income from house property.
Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20078 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
When the warrants are issued, the share price of the said company was Rs.133/-. By the time the right to convert the warrant to shares, the price of the share traded was less than Rs.60/- per share. Therefore, the assessee company has chosen to forego the share application money and incurred loss of Rs.6,60,00,000/-.
Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20077 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee is under bonafide belief not liable to be audited in the light of the guidance note issued by the ICAI and constitutes reasonable cause u/s 273B for non-levy of penalty u/s 271B.
Jude Angelo Menezes Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20076 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In Section 193 declaration made by misrepresentation or suppression of facts such declaration shall be void and shall be deemed never to have been made under the scheme. There is no provision as such in the IDS to afford the declarant a hearing prior to passing an order holding such declaration to be void for being in contravention of Section 193 of the FA, 2016.
Ankush Jain Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20075 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is the practice in the business to hand over the collection as soon as the film is screened. Therefore the assessee is forced to pay the amount collected from the theatres on Sunday night itself after screening the film when the banks are closed. Hence the exclusion prescribed under Rule 6DD.2(j) of the Rules is applicable in the case of the assessee for the payment made during the period when the Bank do not function. For the above stated reason we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made by invoking the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act.
M/S. NVR CINEMA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD – 20 (5) , CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20074 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77617&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee manifested its intention of change of user from business to that of giving these properties on rent for longer period of time wherein doctrine of supervening impossibility had set in preventing business user of these properties for the purposes of business of the assessee.
M/S. EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS DCIT 12 (2) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20073 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No order for the arrest and detention in civil prison of a defaulter shall be made unless the Tax Recovery Officer has issued and served a notice upon the defaulter calling upon him to appear before him on the date specified in the notice and to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison, unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied for the reasons which are mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 73 of Schedule II of the Act.
LALITH KUMAR RAMANI VERSUS RECOVERY OFFICER, BENGALURU
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20072 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79864&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear that an illegal set off was sought to be claimed by the respondent (which probably succeeded because of the misleading appellation of the property in the dispute viz. 'Gupta House'). We set aside the finding of the Tribunal that there were no reasons for Assessing Officer to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON VERSUS SHRI AMIT GUPTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20071 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79866&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no allegation against the assessee before us that they had concealed particulars of their income. However, the allegation is inaccurate particulars have been furnished. AO while completing the assessment vide order dated 01.12.2011, does not record any finding that the particulars given by the assessee in the return of income is incorrect or inaccurate, but the conclusion of the AO is based upon an interpretation of the legal position and held that tax is payable under Section 115JB.
M/S. VINAY AUTOPARTS P. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD 3 (1) , 121, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20070 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79868&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In First Appellate proceedings has enhanced GP addition by extrapolating sales for the month of October, 1997 to the entire year. The contentions of the assessee is that October being the month of Diwali festival the sales are at peak. Hence, sales during festival months/seasons cannot be extrapolated to the entire year. We find merit in the contentions of the assessee.
M/S. NANCHAND & CO., SHAH KHANDELWAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (2) , PUNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (2) , PUNE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20069 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77640&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If instead of making a high pitched assessment the AO, in his wisdom, has thought it fit to get the material verified by an accountant, no fault can be found in the action of the Assessing Officer in referring the matter for special audit under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act.
TEHMUL BURJOR SETHNA Vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20068 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
There is no obligation on the assessee to spend any definite amount every year. Merely mentioning that it will act on the non-profit basis does not make the income received by the assesse diverted by overriding title.
Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20067 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.