-
Where the assessment order forming the basis of proceedings under section 263 are themselves invalid, the order passed u/s 263 cannot survive and it is also a nullity. No decision to the contrary has been cited.
SHRI RAVINDRA KHEMKA VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE II KANPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20066 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77602&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We not convinced with the arguments that the assessee inadvertently failed to disclose the second sale deed in the return of income. There is no plausible explanation offered by the assessee in this respect. Had the AO not got the information from Departmental sources, the assessee would have left un-assessed in respect of the second sale deed and thereby evasion of due taxes.
SH. SACHIN MARKAN VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-SIRHIND
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20065 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77608&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a case where in the seized documents, the aforesaid transactions were recorded, which when being confronted to the assessee, he explained about the mode and manner of earning of such income, which duly stood substantiated in the shape of the documents found during search action. It is not a case where any unaccounted income in the shape of cash or otherwise, was found, of which the assessee could not explain the source, or to say, specify the mode and manner of the earning. In view of this, as per the provisions of section 271AAA the assessee’s case squarely falls within the exceptional clauses of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA.
THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. VERSUS M/S HALCYON LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD. AND M/S IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. AND THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20064 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no reason to hold that the activity of dehusking of paddy into rice will not amount to “manufacture or production” and there is no justification to give a narrower meaning to these terms. The assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. AO was not correct in disallowing the benefit of Section 80IB(11A) to the assessee and, thus, the CIT(A) was not also correct and justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO. Sole ground of assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee u/s.80IB(11A).
M/S AADHAR RICE MILLS PVT. LTD., C/O SRI VINAY KUMAR JALAN, M/S O.P. JALAN AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LLP VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (1) , RANCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20063 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77596&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The intention of the legislature for giving the exemption u/s 80IB(11A) is to promote agro processing industries as is evident from the Finance Ministers speech and also memorandum explaining the amendments to the bill. There is no doubt that oil palm fresh fruit bunches are agricultural products. They may not be edible in their raw or ripe form, but they extract therefore after processing is edible. The language used in the section itself is processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables. Thus, the legislature was aware of the fact that certain fruits and vegetables would require processing and preservation for their long shelf-life. As long as the end product is also consumable it cannot be denied exemption u/s 80IB(11A). Therefore we are satisfied that the oil palm fruits are fruits u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act.
3F OIL PALM AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2) , HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20062 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77598&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was tenure of license/product but there was no certainty that in every subsequent year some determinate service had to be provided by it, that there was no determined/committed expenditure which the assessee was required to incur in the future years towards the corresponding share of revenue, that the indeterminate event of providing of updates and services as and when the they were developed which had been in keeping with the industrial norm.
CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 10 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20061 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77606&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisional attachment u/s 281B of income tax refund of Rs. 180 cr. arising to Vodafone Idea Ltd. pursuant to processing of return u/s. 143(1) for AY 2016-17 is quashed.
Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, CPC, Bangalore & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20060 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The language of Article 22(3) is unambiguous. What falls within its ambit is only income received from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or gambling or betting of any nature. Amounts received by the decree holder as compensation, towards breach of contract cannot fall within its ambit.
Xstrata Coal Marketing AG Vs Dalmia Bharat (Cement) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20059 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is a settled position in law that before commencing the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, the recorded reasons have to be given to the parties and its objections to it is considered and disposed of by an order. This is in accord what the directions of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft. Therefore, in the normal course an reassessment order without furnishing of reasons in support of the reopening notice would be set aside following the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. VSNL.
ASHOK HOTCHAND ADVANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -17 (1) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20058 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This court after a careful analyse of rival submissions and the case law is convinced that the submission of learned Revenue counsel that Southern Petrochemical case is distinguishable deserves to be accepted for more than one reason, as Southern Petrochemical case turns on section 144B which is different from section 144C which we are now concerned with, more importantly the facts scenario is completely different.
WORLDPART LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20057 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Authorities below has taken contradictory stand meaning thereby the Revenue on one hand has accepted the liability shown by the assessee as discussed above and on the other hand the forex losses in relation to such trading liability was not allowed as deduction. Once the Revenue has accepted trading liability shown by the assessee, then the Revenue cannot make the disallowance of the corresponding loss in relation to such advance being a trading asset.
DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1) (2) BARODA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20056 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77586&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Condition prescribed is that the eligible unit should begin to manufacture or produce articles/things or provide any services during the previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or after 01-04-2006. The previous year for the assessment year 2006-07 is the financial year 1-04-2005 to 31-03-2006, meaning thereby, the manufacture/production etc., should be commenced from 01-04-2005 onwards. In the instant case, the assessee has commenced its operation on 31-10-2005.
M/S. ADVANCE GRP COOLING TOWERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS I.T.O., 12 (1) (1) ,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20055 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On the paper seized in search the advance given is only mentioned and it is nowhere mentioned that what was the dates of the payments and what were the mode of payments. If it is presumed that the payments mentioned on this paper was actually made/realized to this party than the same should have been mentioned on the excel sheet seized from the residence of the assessee.
D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. VERSUS SHRI SANDEEP CHHABRA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20054 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77560&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the assessee firm has not charged any interest and remuneration as per partnership deed does not prescribed so, therefore, the assessee firm cannot be compelled to charge interest or remuneration. CIT(A) was right in observing that the disallowance made by the AO on account of non-provision of interest and remuneration of cannot be disallowed under section 10AA(9).
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2) , SURAT. VERSUS KIRAN JEWELLERY, SURAT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20053 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77562&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The show cause notice in the instant case was duly issued within the period of 6 years at which time the default in deduction of TDS was both committed as well as continuing, hence assessee cannot seek immunity from the applicability of Sec. 201(1).
ITO (TDS ) Vs M/ s. Shri Rang Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20052 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 201(3)
-
Ideally the matter could have been concluded by making an appropriate direction to remand the matter back for carrying out the cash verification exercise having regard to assessee's business model. Such an act would leave those impediments unaddressed which appear to pose serious obstacles and hindrances to the nation's goal to becoming a 5 trillion dollar economy.
Smt. Asha Gandhi Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20051 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Sec.56(2)(viib) Provisions are applicable only when the shares are issues over and above the face value of such shares. In the present case the shares had been subscribed at face value and there was no premium element involved.
Edulink Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20050 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
AO had initiated penalty proceedings without referring to any charge as to for concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was levied for deliberateness of 'tax evasion', which is not at all the requirement of Sec.271(1)(c ) of the IT Act.
Google India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20049 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The findings rendered cannot be termed as prima facie as they were not mere observations the learned single Judge was not right in going to the merit while granting liberty to file an appeal. As and when such an appeal is filed, the same will have to be disposed of within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20048 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It will be open for assessees to show, by adducing the necessary facts, that they are direct exporters as well and can therefore avail deduction u/s. 80HHC (1) read with (3).
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S CARPET INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20047 (SC) · Section 80HHC
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.