-
The payment of fee, in absence of evidence of any services rendered, is not justified.
Vatika Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19966 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
After receipt of the impugned order of assessment dated 03.03.2016, assessee had filed a rectification application before the AO seeking correction of the mistake therein; of non-allowing of set off; which was followed up by reminder to the AO in this regard. Therefore, in our view, it stands to reason that the pendency of the rectification proceedings before the AO and the assessee’s expectation that the issue could be sorted out at that level has contributed in no small measure to the delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 before the CIT(A).
M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 3 (1) (1) , BENGALURU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19965 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If, you go through the points taken up by the PCIT for verification regarding interest income and turnover mismatch, the figure taken up by the PCIT is exactly one and the same. The assessee has reported interest income under the head sales turnover in its audit reports, whereas in ITR sales turnover and interest income has been shown separately. If, you add back sales turnover and interest income, then there would be no difference in turnover reported by the assessee in its audit report.
ARITRO ASHSISH ROY VERSUS ACIT-24 (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19964 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77319&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
MAT credit available to the assessee prior to that date even though, the same is arised on account of SEZ units, the credit for such MAT credit needs to be allowed to the assessee, but not to the demerged SEZ units. TCS Ltd has not claimed credit for MAT credit in their return of income.
DCIT-3 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19963 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77320&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. We, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order.
M/S. KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 1 [1] , MYSURU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19962 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77321&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is hardly any dispute between the parties inter alia about the basic admitted fact of the assessee to have raised the impugned share application money from eleven related parties, the AO having taken recourse to sec. 131/133(6) process in all of their cases, these investors having replied from the other end in support of the correctness of the share application money.
MODERN DALKHOLA FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) , JALPAIGURI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19961 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77322&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the Revenue accepts the view propounded by the assessee in response to the Revenue’s query, the AO has certainly to form an opinion whether or not the stand taken by the assessee is acceptable. Therefore, it must follow that 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 AO has formed an opinion accepting the view of the Assessee.
MARICO LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19960 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79744&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is yet to enjoy a clear legal title on the trust property and therefore, the same could not have been treated as its income as per Sec. 5 of the Act. Even if we accept the Revenue's case in alternative that the trust fund had accrued in assessee's favour in AY 1995-96, we find no justification of the lower authorities' action seeking to re-assess the same.
Mahabodhi Society of India Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19959 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 5
-
The proceedings u/s 263, if any, qua the issue of grant of deduction u/s 80-IC, could have been initiated only with the period of two years from the end of the FY 2010-11 being the year in which the order u/s 154/143(1) was passed.
EAST INDIA UDYOG LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE – 3 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19958 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessment order dated 15.01.2013 was draft assessment order which is evident from the very heading of the order. Along with this draft assessment order, the AO has issued notice of demand u/s.156 and penalty notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) and therefore, procedure laid down in Section 144C has been violated.
KOHLER POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. (EARLIER KNOWN AS “LOMBARDINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED”). VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19957 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 28.12.10 reveals that the AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be levied.
SUNITA SHREEGOPAL BARASIA VERSUS ACIT RG 16 (1) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77286&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No error has been committed by the tribunal in allowing the appeals and remanding the matters to the A.O. The tribunal has recorded reasons in para 7, 8 and 9 of the order, as reproduced herein above, for remanding the matters to the A.O. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective assessee. The said evidence was rightly not considered by the A.O., Commissioner and the tribunal. The impugned orders passed by the tribunal in remanding the matter does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. No substantial question of law arise in both these appeals for consideration of this Court.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, VADODARA VERSUS RITAL R. PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19955 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79735&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeals for non prosecution is no longer res integra. Hence the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non prosecution without adverting to the merits of the matter.
THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CHENNAI-1 VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12 (3), CHENNAI-34.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19954 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made of ₹ 37,30,710/-, which is lesser cash in hand as compared with the books of accounts in which the assess has shown more cash in hand. It is neither a case under Section 68 nor Section 69-A. It was not a case where money is not recorded in the books of account of assessee, and in the present case cash in hand in the books of account was found to be more than the actual cash found during the course of search.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANPUR VERSUS M/S KESARWANI SHEETALAYA ALLD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19953 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79738&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The concept of make available requires that the fruits of the services should remain available to the service recipients in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skills etc. which is met in the instant case as can be reflected from the nature and duration of the contract. The short durability or permanent usage of the service envisages by the concept of make available services remains at the disposal of their service recipients.
H. J. Heinz Company Vs ADIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19952 (HC-DELHI)
-
The will has to be read in its entirety and not in bits & pieces as done by the revenue to understand the intention of the testator. The testator did not bequeath the property but bequeathed part of the sale consideration.
Kumar Rajaram Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19951 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Operation of both the stay orders has expired due to lapse of six month time period from the date of the order. Therefore, when the orders have outlived their utility and lost their force in course of time, nothing survives for either recall or modification.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (1) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19950 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77270&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A plain reading of Article 22(3) of the DTAA shows that the amounts received by the decree holder as compensation, towards breach of contract cannot fall within its ambit. 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. It is only such income which can be taxed, if at all, in India.
GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG VERSUS DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19949 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79723&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of provision i.e., Section 264 reveals that said Revisional Authority has powers to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order and said Revisional Authority has powers which includes powers to make orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that u/s 264 writ petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of a statutory revision u/s 264 to said Revisional Authority.
B. MURALIDHAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19948 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79724&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy making it clear that all questions raised by the writ petitioner including questions pertaining to cross-examination can be raised by the writ petitioner before CIT-A and the issue of whether the cash was rerouted to the writ petitioner being a factual dispute can also be gone into by CIT-A for taking a decision on writ petitioner's request for cross-examination.
M/S. MARINA SHIP BROKERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19947 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79725&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.