-
Assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 VERSUS M/S. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19765 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79351&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The learned Counsel for the parties agree that these substantial questions of law be taken up for consideration together.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VERSUS V.S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19764 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79350&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer, on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account reopened the assessment. No return has been filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 which is discernable from the copy of the reasons placed at paper book pages 4&5.
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH BAHADAURIA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 32 (5), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19763 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76632&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It has not been shown that the assessee’s sales at any time in the past exceeded the threshold monetary limit required for tax audit. An assessee would normally heed to the advice by his counsel, who, it is stated, failed to advise him in the matter.
PANKAJ BHOTIKA VERSUS ITO, WARD-46 (2), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19762 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76631&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that the contention of the assessee is contrary to the record and further once the AO has issued a notice u/s 148 dated 29.12.2009 which is also established from the Despatch Register filed before us, then the dispute of the service of the same will not render the assessment proceedings null and void.
SHRI RAM NARAYAN S/O LATE SHRI NANDA JI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), KOTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19761 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: No rational person with sound mind will invest huge amount in the share subscription of a paper/shell company having no worthwhile business/project in hand at such a huge premium. The onus is on the assessee to to prove the genuineness of the transaction as well credit worthiness of the share subscribers. The failure to produce the subscribers and statement of the director that the entire investment is bogus justifies the addition
Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19760 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature. A plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him. In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable. The constitutional validity of any provision and especially taxing provision cannot be struck down on such reasoning. In tax matters, neither any equity nor hardship has any role to play while deciding the rights of any taxpayer qua the Revenue
Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19759 (SC) · Section 35AC(7)
-
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results
PCIT vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19758 (SC) · Section 68
-
S. 170/ 292BB: A notice issued in the name of the amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void because the amalgamating entity ceases to exist. Participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in s. 292BB. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.
PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19757 (SC) · Sections 170, 292BB
-
Revenue department wanted to initiate the proceedings both u/s.147 as well as u/s.154, which itself has established that the information as well as the accounts were very much on record, which were very much in the notice of the AO as he wanted to invoke the provisions of section 154 to rectify the mistake.
M/S. G.N. MOHANTY AND CO. VERSUS ITO, WARD 1 (2), BHUBANESWAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19756 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76624&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not agree with the TPO that ALP is ‘NIL’ and he analysed the management services on benefit test. There is no such method in the TP study. You cannot adopt a method which is not embedded in the study.
ADAMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 1 (3), HYDERABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19755 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76619&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
‘Chart’ filed by the assessee alongwith balance sheet, reveals beyond any doubt, that the deduction pertaining to ‘building premises’ was duly disclosed by the assessee in the aforesaid ‘block of assets’.
RASAI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19754 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76618&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee placed on record supporting documentary evidence viz. (i) copies of the returns of the lender companies; (ii) copies of their audited financial statements; (iii) copies of the bank accounts of the lender companies; and (iv) the ‘affidavits’ of the principle officers of the lender companies, wherein they had confirmed the loan transactions.
I.T. O-20 (2) (5) , MUMBAI VERSUS SMT. PRATIMA ASHAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19753 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The cost of acquisition of know-how under development being a self-generated asset is not ascertainable, and hence, no chargeable capital gains would arise.
M/S. BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (1) , MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19752 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the reasons recorded by the AO, it is evident that he has formed reason to believe that income of ₹ 85,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 based on the suggestion of DDIT(Inv.), New Delhi that in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2010-11 is required to be issued to bring to tax the undisclosed income regarding accommodation entry of ₹ 85,00,000/- obtained by the assessee.
M/S LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (5), ALIGARH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19751 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once deduction is granted in the initial Assessment Year, the same would continue for the period of 10 consecutive year unless the relief for initial year is also withdrawn.
Manpasand Beverages Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19750 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 80IB, 263
-
The SPV required to be incorporated for the purpose of domiciling the project and there is no bar on the assessee to execute the work.
Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Transstroy (India) Ltd. Guntur
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19749 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 80IA(4)
-
A flight simulator was an essential part of training imparted to the pilots and crew of aircraft and the hourly quantification of such charges for use of the simulator did not mean that the assessee was hiring the same or making payment for a right to use the same.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19748 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Approval fee by VUDA is in the nature of a contractual levy for rendering services and hence it may not fall under the category of tax, so as to attract the provisions of sec.43B of the Act.
Global Entropolis (vizag) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19747 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 43B
-
Assessee is entitled for benefit of valuing the property on the basis of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the cost of acquisition u/s. 55(2) (a) is not to be taken into account, especially considering that the word land has not been included in the section.
Manish Traders Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19746 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.