-
The notice u/s 148(2) was first published in the newspaper on 09.12.2017 which was beyond the period of limitation, however, the record reveals that the notice u/s 148(2) was first issued on 30.03.2017, which as per Section 149(1)(b) was within limitation.
SMT. GOURA SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19805 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79461&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee’s appeal was allowed by the CIT(A) by an order dated 3rd March, 2015 inter alia on the ground that before invoking Section 145, the AO had not given any opportunity to the Assessee and therefore, could not have drawn an adverse influence against it.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 VERSUS OMNIA APPLIANCES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19804 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79465&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has separately filed Form No.10 along with the Board Resolution, along with the covering letter dated 01.04.2009, it is a fit case where the assessing officer should be directed to take note of Form No.10 accompanied by the Board Resolution and take a decision on merits.
SHRI CHANDRAPRABHUJI MAHARAJ JAIN JUNA MANDIR RUST VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) -II, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19803 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79466&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VERSUS HIMANSHU CHANDULAL PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19802 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79467&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, it is true that a notice was issued u/s 153. The petitioner was asked to furnish true and correct particulars of income including the income, which was included by the petitioner in the original return while finalizing the total income, meaning thereby, the return filed in response to the notice u/s 153A includes the income tax income (if any) in addition to income originally declared by the petitioner while filing the return u/s 139(1).
M/S SHYAM VANASPATI OILS LTD. THRU AUTH. SIGN. BIPUL MOITRA VERSUS PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , LKO. AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19801 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79469&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Upon reading the reasons to believe as a whole the live link between the material in the form of the investigation report and the formation of belief that income that has escaped assessment is prima facie discernable.
CHETAN SABHARWAL Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19800 (HC-DELHI)
-
The amount received by assessee on sale of prepaid cards to the extent of unutilized talk time did not accrue as income in the year of sale.
SHYAM TELELINK LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19799 (SC)
-
The said allegation could trigger the investigation, but it alone cannot be the basis for arriving at the belief that there was escapement of income.
Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19798 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 68
-
The assessment orders for both the assessment years do not mention the ground under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, viz., for concealing of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
M/S. SOORYA DRUG HOUSE VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 THODUPUZHA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19797 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76735&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a matter of record that Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case on hand was dismissed vide the Tribunal’s order in ITA No.280/Bang/2017 dated 03.08.2018 by relying on the CBDT Circular No.3/2018; that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limits prescribed therein.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, TUMKUR. VERSUS M/S. SACRED HEART SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19796 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76736&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A statement has been placed on record on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions stating that before Ext.P1 judgment was brought to the notice of the authority, action had already been initiated by issuing the demand notices.
M/S AMALGAM AQUACULTURE APPLICATIONS LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1 (1), KOCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19795 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79440&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Ultimate finding with respect to the question of allowability of deductions under Section 80P is yet to be rendered by the Appellate Authority. Therefore a uniform insistence for payment of 20% of the amount, pending disposal of the appeals, cannot be held as justified.
THE PULPATTA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19794 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79442&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The language or expression of sub-section (1) of Section 132 is clear and unambiguous.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU, THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3) , VERSUS M/S. ASSOCIATED MINING CO.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19793 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79443&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an order is passed by the CIT (A) on merits despite the fact that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT (A) at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex-parte.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEPTIONS) VERSUS SHREE NIRMAN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19792 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was obligatory on the Assessees to satisfactorily account for the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transactions of the so-called providers of such cash in such huge sums.
RAJIV GUPTA Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19791 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 197/ Rule 28AA TDS: An order u/s 197 is quasi-judicial & must be supported by valid & cogent reasoning. It has to be based on objective criteria and relevant material. On facts, there is arbitrariness and non-application of mind at various levels which vitiates the certificate. The reasons do not conform to the requirement of s. 197 r. w. Rule 28 AA. The settled legal position is that orders passed by a statutory authority under "dictation" of a superior officer or anyone else is bad in law
Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19790 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
The Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Benami Act, 1988, comes into force on 01.11.2016 and does not have retrospective effect. Unless a contrary intention is reflected, every legislation is presumed and intended to be prospective. In the normal course of human behavior, one is entitled to arrange his affairs keeping in view the laws for the time being in force and such arrangement of affairs should not be dislodged by retrospective application of law. The High Court can strike down wrong exercise of jurisdiction u/A 226, 227 individual to save individuals from lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment
Niharika Jain vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19789 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Suppression of profit/ fictitious loss in stocks/ derivatives by way of Client Code Modification (CCM): CCM within 1% is absolutely normal. By no stretch of imagination can any AO consider a transaction on the Stock Exchange as income of a person other than the one who has either actually received monies in his bank account (in case of profit) and/or paid any monies from his bank account (in case of losses). The AO has to show that the losses were purchased and the party was given cheque or cash payment in view of such favours
DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19788 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 56(2)(vii): The stand of the Dept that in the case of an individual, a "HUF" is not a "relative" and that while a gift by the individual to the HUF is exempt, a gift from the HUF to its member is taxable u/s 56(2)(vii) is not correct. S. 56 (2) (vii) provides that the members of the 'HUF' are to be taken as "relatives". The converse is not provided because on first principles, amounts received by a member from the 'HUF' cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation. Terming by the PCIT of decisions of the Tribunal as "incorrect" tantamounts to judicial indiscipline and will lead to chaos
Pankil Garg vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19787 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
As decided in own case looking to the nature of expenditure and nature of business activity of the assessee, it would reveal that these expenditures were not wholly required, in a sense, for the purpose of business or could it be termed that these expenses were exclusively incurred for the purpose of business.
SHRI RAM KRUPA MEDICARE P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIR. 2 (1) (1) BARODA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19786 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.