-
Golf course is a plant on which assessee is entitled to the depreciation at the rate of 25%. In fact, by creating these facilities, the assessee has created a service facility for its members and it produces revenue for the assessee. It is not always necessary that each plant should produce certain other tangible goods.
Landbase India Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20026 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The provisions of the Income Tax Act as in statute books as on the first day of the relevant assessment year are applicable for that assessment year and therefore, the amended provisions of section 54F are applicable in the present case. In view of proviso (a)(ii) of Sec. 54F(1), whether the deduction u/s. 54F (1) is allowable in respect of second property or first property, it is not material because in both the situations, the proviso will be operating and as a result, the assessee will not be eligible for deduction u/s. 54F (1).
Smt. Anuradha Rajendra Gupta Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20025 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Bogus purchases in s. 153D search assessment: There is serious suspicion about the conduct of the assessee in taking additional ground challenging the issue of approval u/s 153D for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee is making an attempt is derail the issue on merits and to escape on technical ground. The affidavits filed by the AOs coupled with circumstantial evidences available in the assessment folders clearly establish the fact of obtaining necessary approval u/s 153D though copy of approval letter is not available in the assessment record. Argument that only profit can be assessed is not correct. 100% addition u/s 69C towards bogus purchases confirmed (NK Proteins 292 CTR 354 (SC) followed)
Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20024 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 254(2): (i) Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay (ii) An order can be said to suffer from a "mistake apparent from the record" if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same
Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20023 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2)
-
It is an undisputed fact that though business of assessee came to a halt in the year 2010, yet the assessee was liquidating its assets. The assessee had only a leasehold rights on the land and it had to get the permission of SIPCOT for transfer of leasehold rights. The major portion of expenses claimed is on account of sales tax demand of ₹ 53.33 lakhs, property tax, audit fees, property maintenance, settlement amount paid on labour court’s order.
HIRSH BRACELET INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (2) , BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20022 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77453&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Gem India Mfg. Co. has considered and decided this issue in respect of activity of cuttings and polishing of diamonds and it was held that said activity does not result new article or thing which can be held as manufacturing or production. Thus once the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then it is a binding law for all the authorities including the AO.
M/S. VISHAL GEMS INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DCIT CIRCLE – 7 JAIPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20021 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77461&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO who has chosen to apply N.P rate of 12% without bringing on record any comparable case where such an exorbitant rate of N.P was either shown by the assessee or assessed by the AO which has become final. AO while framing assessment has totally lost sight of the fact that during the year under consideration the turnover of the assessee has grown up by more than five times as compared to last year and therefore, assessee cannot be expected to report the same rate of Net Profit as was earned in last year.
SH. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA, CONTRACTOR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MATHURA. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20020 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77463&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot override the provisions of charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act and also where under section 90(2) of the Act, it is provided that DTAAs would override domestic law, in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - CIRCLE I, PUNE. VERSUS KOSO INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20019 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77464&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
TPO in the second round carried out the benchmarking exercise all afresh treating the assessee as KPO service provider as against his earlier view of a BPO service provider in the first round. After passing of the order by the TPO on 21.11.2016, the AO proceeded to straightaway pass the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 28-11-2016. It is, ergo, overt that pursuant to the fresh benchmarking done by the TPO in his second order, the AO omitted to pass a draft order which could have been challenged by the assessee before the DRP or the CIT(A).
M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20018 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the three sub-contractors are relatives of the partners of the assessee firm, and assessing authority recorded categorical finding had rightly disallowed the expenditure claimed in view of provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The argument raised by assessee does not have any force that it is a case under Section 37 and not under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act.
M/S AKRATI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX -4, PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AGRA AND ANOTHER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20017 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79807&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no violation of the legislative condition as assessee's oil wells had come into existence after earth digging through rigs. The assessee used its oil rigs, for bringing into existence the new oil well / eligible undertaking than having formed the same through the old plant and machinery. Crude oil is treated interchangeable to 'mineral oil' as per Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948.
Oil India Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20016 (ITAT-GAUHATI)
-
A SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried on in an SEZ unit with AY 2012-13 and onwards.
M/s Safeflex International Ltd. Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20015 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 115JB(6)
-
From the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is clear that the A.O. wish to verify the transaction with respect to the information received by the department. It is well settled through serious of judgements of this Court that re-assessment even if in case where return was not scrutinized before the income chargeable to tax has escaped before acceptance originally cannot restore unless the A.O. has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped. In other-words, for mere verification or for fishing inquiry, reopening of assessment is not permissible.
MRIDULLA BADARMAL JAIN VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20014 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79796&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reopening notice has been issued on the basis of the information obtained during the course of assessment of earlier assessment year u/s 143(3). Such information can form a valid basis for issuing reopening notice. In the facts of the present case, the assessment for the subject assessment year was by virtue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act.
BELAZIO CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-12 (1) (3).
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20013 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79797&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No application while dealing with the Act. It is also his submission that the reliance upon decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Minor Bababhai is inappropriate, as in that case, the Revenue has accepted that the amount due from the un-secured creditor were in the nature of capital assets. Thus, there was no dispute on the issue of 'capital asset' as in this case. Therefore, this appeal deserves admission.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -4 VERSUS M/S. SIEMENS NIXDORF INFORMATION SYSTEMSE GMBH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20012 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79798&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the CIT (A) had deleted addition made by AO and had made two additions of the labour charges and sundry creditors on the basis of the profit and loss account, and balance-sheet filed by the assessee along with his return. Thus, there was no new source of income as claimed by the assessee.
M/S. S.D. TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20011 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79800&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Allegations that the sale of shares transactions was suspicion is not supported by facts. No revision can take place based on mere suspicion. Pr. CIT has not controverted the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee. When the assessee has furnished all the details, including the purchase details and sale details, CIT has not explained, as to how he came to a conclusion that there is an error that caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue.
SMT. ARCHANA SALARPURIA SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20010 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77421&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the aforesaid final possession letter was never filed by the assessee before the A.O, therefore, the said verification was indispensably required to be done on his part in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration, we uphold his view.
MR. SANJAY BADANI C/O JAYESH SANGHRAJKA & CO LLP VERSUS ACIT-10 (3) [NOW KNOWN AS 15 (2) (1) ] AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20009 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77422&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that the investment was funded using a portion of an interest-free shareholder loan and share capital does not affect the appellant's status as the beneficial owner of interest income, as the entire interest income was the sole property of the appellant., cites OECD 2017 Model Convention to appreciate the meaning of beneficial owner. The transaction between the appellant- assessee and ABPL cannot be considered a mere back-to-back transaction lacking economic substance.
Golden Bella Holdings Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20008 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee was granted exemption u/s. 11 upto preceding AY wherein AO had accepted that assessee's activities fell within the expression 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' u/s. 2(15), however, Revenue had denied exemption during subject AY in view of introduction of the proviso to Sec. 2(15). Considering the objects for which the assessee is set up and manner in which funds generated are utilized, there is no doubt that there is no profit motive in carrying out the activity of the assesse. Therefore, revenue's pleea is rejected and assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20007 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.