-
The extensive repairs and renovations carried out by the assessee cannot be said to be incurred to preserve and maintain an already existing asset since many new objects have been brought into as could be seen from the list of construction made and thus, the object of expenditure made by the assessee is definitely to bring a new asset into existence to obtain new advantage further giving enduring benefit to the assessee.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. E.T.A. TRAVEL AGENCY (P) LTD., CHENNAI-4.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19905 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79642&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All that is required for the 1st respondent is to consider whether it is desirable or expedient to allow the petitioner to file the returns for avoiding any genuine hardship.
LABH SINGH VERSUS PRINCIPAL INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19904 (HC-HP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79643&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondent failed to notice that u/s 115A (5) r.w.s. 115A (1) (a) there was no need for the Petitioner to file a return of income u/s 139(1). Respondent wrongly adverted to Clause (b) of Explanation 2 when this was a case of no return having been filed and the case if at all would fall under Clause (a).
M/S. NESTLE SA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CIRCLE-2 (2) (2) , NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19903 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79644&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has placed before the Court a detailed chart which shows dissimilarities between the Infosys BPO and the Assessee on several counts. Infosys provides business process management services to organisations over a wide range of industries whereas the Assessee is a routine captive service provider.
SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19902 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79645&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The scope of the Act will apply to any Central Act or Regulation and also to the Constitutions, as it is the Rule of interpretation which has been made applicable to the Constitution in the same manner as it applied to any Central Act or Regulation.
SHRI SUBASH CHAND JAIN VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – I (2), SALEM – 7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19901 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79646&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The crux of what has been mentioned therein is applicable even in relation to holding of immovable properties.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Niketan Krishorchandra Patel
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The provision of interest in Section 244-A of the Income Tax Act would have no applicability in the present case because it is a case of illegal attachment and retention.
Competent Authority-cum-Chief Administrator Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19899 (HC-P&H) · Section 244-A
-
Department's SLPs citing low tax effect is dismissed, applies CBDT's recent circular which had enhanced the monetary limits for filing Departmental appeals before SC to Rs. 2 cr.
MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD Vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19898 (SC)
-
In terms of the second proviso to Section 153 of the Act the period of extension for completing the assessment was deemed to be extended to one year and hence there was time till August, 2017 for the AO to complete the assessments.
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19897 (HC-DELHI) · Section 245D(4)
-
The income was not directly derived from the business and had no direct nexus.
Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-Ii And Another
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19896 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 80IB(7)(a)
-
Admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court leads credence to the bona fide of the assessee and therefore, the penalty is not exigible u/s 271(1)(c).
SYNDICATE BANK VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE 3, BANGALORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19895 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77075&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee trust was required to dispose or convert the assets not conforming to the requirement of Section 11(5) into permissible investment within one year from the end of the financial year in which such bonus shares or other assets are received or 31.03.1992 whichever is later and also held that the income over expenditure derived by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 is assessable at the maximum marginal rate.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. KSHETROPASANA GOKULDHAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19894 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79628&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Amendment or no amendment, if the profit is estimated on any ground, whether ignoring books of accounts or rejection thereof, then there is no scope for allowability/disallowability of any deduction.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS M/S. GANESH ROLLILNG SHUTTERS ENGINEERING WORKS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19893 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79630&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It can straightaway be noticed that the crucial change is the substitution of the words ‘books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A’ by two clauses i.e. a and b, where clause b is in the alternative and provides that ‘such books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned’ could ‘pertain’ to or contain information that ‘relates to’ a person other than a person referred to in Section 153A.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 VERSUS M/S. DREAMCITY BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19892 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79631&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
While it is clear that relevant provision relied on by learned counsel for writ petitioner talks only about first appeal to the first appellate authority, the order of ITAT and stops with the same, there is another provision which deals with a scenario which does not fall in such a factual setting.
S. AJIT KUMAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-20 (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19891 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79632&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Commissioner has got mixed up in between the stipulations warranting exercise under Section 12AA(3) and Section 13(1) (b) in so far as it dis-entitles a trust or a charitable institution to the exclusion from the total income of the previous year, any income, if the same is used for benefit of any particular religious community or caste.
ST. MICHAELS EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION ST. MICHAELS HIGH SCHOOL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19890 (HC-PATNA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79633&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It would be a different matter, where the funds borrowed or advanced, are for business purpose, in which case the same would stand to be adjusted against the business purpose for which the amount stands paid or received, viz. an advance against purchase of goods, while in the instant case the monies received, directly or indirectly, have been met by repayment of monies, i.e., are loans or advances simpliciter, to which, as clarified, the provision is applicable.
G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19889 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
There was reduction in the carry forward of the losses - In any case the carry forward of losses for the assessment year 2008- 09 are to be considered only in the year when the assessee reports positive income and the said loss brought forward from the earlier years is claimed to be set off against the profit of the year in future.
M/S THE AJMER URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 AJMER.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19888 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77040&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a definite and accrued liability of the assessee for the year for which the services have been rendered by the employees. It is nothing but additional variable salaries payable to the employees.
M/S. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED VERSUS ADDL. CIT RANGE- 16 NEW DELHI AND DCIT CIRCLE – 25 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19887 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77042&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding rendered by the Tribunal that the price for which the shares were agreed to be sold is a justified reasonable price is a finding not supported by any document and therefore, perverse.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VII, CHENNAI. VERSUS MP PURUSHOTHAMAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19886 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79608&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.