-
No hesitation in holding that the assessee is carrying out objects of general public utility, hence, fulfills the condition of charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. It is worth mentioning, after introduction of proviso to section 2(15) DIT(E) cancelled the registration granted under section 12A of the Act by holding that as per the said proviso, the assessee is engaged in commercial activity.
OTTERS CLUB VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.) WARD–2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20046 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77504&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO in the reasons recorded incorrect facts that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 9 lakhs, despite assessing officer has accepted that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- only. AO while recording the reasons has not applied mind to the material on record. Source of purchase of shares have been accepted by the assessing officer, which was also found factually incorrect. Further the deposit in the bank account per se cannot be income of the assessee.
SHRI SAURABH SAINI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (2) , GURGAON.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20045 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77509&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation offered by assessee is bonafide to take it out of clutches of the penalty proceedings as no attempt is made by assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income nor an attempt is made by assessee to conceal his income more-so there is no prejudice to the Revenue as further income-tax of ₹ 5,00,000/- was deducted at source by employer Pace u/s 192 on behalf of assessee on additional salary income of ₹ 16,63,897/- paid to assessee on 24.09.2013 for impugned ay: 2013-14 within provisions of Section 192.
MR. ANISH DHIRAJ MEHTA VRINDAVAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10 (3) (3) , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20044 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77510&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has incurred the expenditure towards construction of 169 houses for the villagers who had lost their home due to natural calamity. In order to cater to the needs of those destitute persons who had lost the roof over their head on account of natural calamity, assessee constructed the houses by expending the amount. AO and the authorities have held that it was not incurred for the purpose of business.
M/S. KANHIYALAL DUDHERIA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALLARI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20043 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The case on hand is not falling under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 159 of the Act, and in such circumstances, the proceedings pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued to a dead person cannot be continued against the legal representatives. We are not impressed by the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Revenue that the writ-applicant having participated in the proceedings cannot turn around and submit that the proceedings cannot continue as the notice was issued to a dead person.
URMILABEN ANIRUDHHASINHJI JADEJA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (1) (3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20042 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79833&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely by reason of the fact that the income tax authority has administered oath to an assessee and recorded his sworn statement during the survey proceedings under Section 133A it cannot be found that such statement has no evidentiary value at all and that it cannot be used in any manner against the assessee in any proceedings under the Act.
C.K. ABDUL AZEEZ VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CIRCLE, CALICUT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20041 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79834&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C/143(2) of the Act, it is a clear cut case of overlooking the procedure and provisions set out in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under these sections, the Assessing Officer cannot issue consolidated notices for different Assessment Years.
M/S BARNALA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., MERRUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20040 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77497&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As originally the assessee had no intention to file an appeal against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that giving effect order passed by the AO on 31.03.2017 alone is the provocation of filing the appeal before this Tribunal with the delay of 288 days against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that this does not constitute sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing the appeal before us.
M/S. KOSAMATTOM FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20039 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77498&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations as in this case.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3-MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. M.J. EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20038 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79826&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 144C/ 254: (i) Condonation of delay of 1018 days: None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned. A technical view of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay should not be taken if the legal issue has to be decided for other years (ii) A draft assessment order u/s 144C issued with a notice of demand u/s 156 and a s/ 271(1)(c) penalty notice is null and void (Eaton Fluid Power 96 TM.com 512 followed, BS Ltd 94 TM.com 346 (Hyd) distinguished)
Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20037 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 144C, 254
-
There is a power with the Central Board of Direct Taxes to condone the delay. There appears to be no justification in forcing the petitioner to file an application before Central Board of Direct Taxes. Once the power is there and it was not the petitioner, who was at fault in the matter, this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered opinion that the delay can be condoned by this Court also, and therefore, the delay in filing the application for refund of tax is hereby condoned.
COLONEL ASHWANI KUMAR RAM SINGH (RETD.) VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20036 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Expenditure is not necessarily confined to the money which has been actually paid out. It covers a liability which has accrued or which has been incurred although it may have to be discharged at a future date. However, a contingent liability which may have to be discharged in future cannot be considered as expenditure. It also covers a liability which the assessee has incurred in praesenti although it is payable in futuro.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VERSUS M/S. OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES (P) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20035 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79828&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Liability of professionals acting as Non-executive directors: Practicing professionals are prohibited from acting as full time directors. They can only act as non-executive directors not performing administrative duties. Such persons cannot be prosecuted for offenses committed by the company. it will be a travesty of justice to prosecute all Directors if the offense is committed without their knowledge. The accounts are signed by such directors in a routine manner and they are not subject to vicarious liability (Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 34 followed)
Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20034 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147/148/292B: The officer recording the reasons u/s 148(2) for reopening the assessment & the officer issuing notice u/s 148(1) has to be the same person. If the reasons are recorded by the DCIT but the notice is issued by the ITO, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. The s. 148 notice is a jurisdictional notice. Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured u/s 292B. The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant
Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20033 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 147, 148, 292B
-
S. 254(1): The Tribunal should not make general observations that there are "contrary decisions". This statement led us to direct counsel to examine the law and bring to our attention any decision contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills 123 ITR 429 etc. We are now informed by Counsel that there are no contrary decisions. All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. We request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations
PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20032 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
It is trite law that at the stage of show cause notice, charge sheet, summons or notice to appear, constitutional courts would not interfere so as to interject the proceedings and thereby prevent the authorities from proceeding with. The mere issuance of a show cause notice or notice to appear for the purposes of investigation does not infringe the right of a party, as it does not affect the right of such party.
SRI. SACHIN NARAYAN Vs THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20031 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 132
-
While exercising powers of enhancement u/s. 251, CIT(A) can consider new source of income that is emanating from records produced before AO, but was though not dealt by AO.
S.D. Traders Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20030 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Where queries have been raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to the same, then the non-discussion of the same or non-rejection of the response of the assessee, would necessarily mean that the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee. Thus an opinion is formed during the regular Assessment proceedings, bars the Assessing Officer to reopen the same only on account of a different view.
Marico Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) and Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20029 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
No fee was leviable to the assessee u/ s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay pertaining to AY 2015-16.
Vkare Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC-TDS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20028 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 234E
-
Assessee had entered into agreement for sale in FY 2012-13, moreover the stamp duty was also paid during the same FY, however, the sale of gala was registered during F.Y. 2013-14. The final registration of sale agreement was only a fulfillment of contractual obligation and accordingly provisions of section 43CA, did not apply at the time of entering into a transaction.
Rajprabha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.