-
Section 144C provides for forwarding of the draft assessment order to the assessee so that he could, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, file objections before the DRP and the AO as to the variation sought to be made by the AO to the income or loss returned.
ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19946 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79726&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the Assessee is only a borrower from VCIPL of a sum of ₹ 16.73 crores (which the AO has restricted to ₹ 6.40 crores to the extent of available accumulated profits). Merely because Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of the voting power in both VCIPL as well as the Assessee will not permit the Revenue to tax the aforementioned loan as a deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee which is only the borrower. The said amount which is borrowed by the Assessee from VCIPL, in which Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of voting power can if it all, be taxed only as deemed dividend in the hands of Verizon Singapore and not the Assessee. No substantial question of law arises.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 VERSUS VERIZON INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19945 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79728&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There exists a prima-facie case to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under Sec. 50 & 51 of Black Money Act, 2015. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations can not be examined at this stage.
Raghav Bahl Vs Union Of India And Another
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19944 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The mandatory period of limitation under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be sought to be defeated by delaying the dispatch of the relevant order of the ITAT to the concerned 'jurisdictional' CIT. What is relevant is when the CIT (Judicial) representing the Department before the ITAT received the order, which in any event is generally made available in the public domain soon after the order is pronounced.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19943 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
If a particular income is included only in the total income under the Act but not under the total income of other country, or vice-versa, the same cannot qualify for the benefit under the provision. Therefore, the relief u/s. 90(1) (a)(i) of the Act has to be granted only to the extent of such doubly taxed income and not beyond that.
iGate Global Solutions Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19942 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 153A, 153C Search Assessments: The Act has separate provisions for making assessment in case of material found in the course of search from premises of assessee (s. 153A) as well as material found in course of search at premises of third party (S. 153C). Even if search happens in case of assessee, the AO cannot initiate proceedings u/s 153A if incriminating material is found during search of other person. Proceedings should be initiated u/s 153C and failure to do so renders the addition in the s. 153A assessment void-ab-initio (Vinod Kumar Gupta 165 DTR 409 (Del) distinguished)
Trilok Chand Chaudhary vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19941 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 153A, 153C
-
CIT(A) rightly observed that the payment of commission are made to non-resident overseas agents who have no PE or business activities in India and the services are also rendered outside India as such no income is arising to the non-resident commission agent in India and as such no TDS is deductible u/s 194-H which is applicable for resident Indians only. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ACIT, CIRCLE-30 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS ISHMAN INTERNATIONAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19940 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77249&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction under sub-Section 1 of 80IA shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant and the Assessee furnishes on furnishing his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19939 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79703&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The parties have confirmed the sales made to the assessee and this was the first year of assessee’s business, therefore, there was all the more reason for the suppliers to insist for cash payments. If the AO had a doubt about the genuineness of the above purchases, the AO could have summoned one or all of those three parties and asked them questions in relation to the confirmation letters, to satisfy himself that the contents thereof were, in fact, based on actual purchases for which cash was paid by the Assessee. He could have asked them to produce their books of accounts, bill books, etc.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – X VERSUS MRS. KRISHNA GUPTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79704&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT reasoning appears to be that Section 80P was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2007 introducing specifically that the benefit of exemption would not apply to any cooperative bank other than Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The circular then stated that in the light of this inclusion – to Section 80P by way of introduction of Section 80P(4), the exemption could not be availed of by the banks invested in Regional Rural Banks.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER VERSUS M/S BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19937 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79705&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the expenditure is not to be treated as capital expenditure, then it will have to be treated as revenue expenditure was perhaps not addressed in the manner it should have been treated by the ITAT. Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter to the ITAT for decision afresh on the treatment to be accorded to the expenditure incurred by the Assessee of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 30.86 crores and whether in particular, it should be treated as a revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ELEL HOTEL & INVESTMENT LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19936 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79706&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The case was processed u/s 143(1) disallowing the deduction claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of ₹ 1,24,04,182/- and demand of ₹ 42,83,943/- has been raised. There is an obvious non-application of mind by the AO to the above fact. If indeed the above deduction claimed by the Petitioner was not allowed in the first instance, and the intimation sent to the Petitioner u/s 143(1) indicated this, then the question of any income escaping assessment on that score did not arise.
SHREE BHAVANI POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23 (3), & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19935 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79707&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SPECL, has merely acted as broker and did not have the full authority to negotiate and finalize the rate of coal. Therefore, By no stretch can be termed as an agent wholly and exclusively associated to any particular non-resident supplier.
Hind Energy & Coal Benefication (India) Ltd Vs ITO (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19934 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 195
-
The Tribunal has given an unnatural and strained meaning to the expression supply. Yes, by entering into the agreement and by supplying the material PUCH authorized its use but its actual use would start only when production and sale commenced and that would be the stage at which royalty would be payable.
The Majestic Auto Ltd Vs The CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19933 (HC-P&H)
-
The nature of the transaction will depend on facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly did not get weighed down by multiplication of decisions dealing with separate sets of fact. This approach adopted by the Tribunal would not lead to a substantial question of law as proposed by the Appellant.
SWASTIK REALTORS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19932 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79687&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an officer of the Department is allowed to choose a date on which a copy of the order which has to be given effect to or acted upon is sent to the officer concerned, it will defeat the very purpose for which the legislature has stipulated definite time limits in various provisions of the Act for the authorities to perform their statutory tasks in a time bound manner.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC, M/S. NUOVO PIGNONE, M/S. GE JAPAN LTD., GE ENGINE SERVICES DISTRIBUTION LLC VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19931 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79693&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that an acknowledgement may have been issued in Form- 4 by the CIT, CPC did not provide any immunity to the Petitioners if it was found that the declaration was contrary to Section 193 of the FA, 2016 which begins with a non-obstante clause.
ANKUSH JAIN, VAIBHAV JAIN VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19930 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79694&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear from the correspondence with Audit Party that there was no independent decision arrived at by the AO to form ‘reasons to believe’ for reopening of the assessment after being satisfied that there was an escapement of income. The above correspondence also indicates that not once but on two separate occasions the AO clearly formed the opinion that this was not a case fit for reopening of the assessment and that the AO was constrained, notwithstanding that opinion, to reopen the assessment on the express instructions issued to him vide letter dated 11th December 2012 of the Addl.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-21 VERSUS LALIT BAGAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19929 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79695&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
One of the essential conditions in Section 69A is that the Assessee should be the owner of the money and it should not be recorded in his books of accounts. This was a pre-condition to the next step of the Assessee offering no explanation about the nature and source of the acquisition of such money.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VERSUS ANOOP JAIN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19928 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79696&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above ₹ 1 crore, that is, ₹ 6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than ₹ 1 crore. We find that on merits a disallowance of ₹ 19,39,60,866/- was based solely on third party information, which was not subjected to any further scrutiny.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19926 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79697&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.