-
It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, the notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as the assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT-1 VERSUS GOVIND GOPAL GOYAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19704 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79285&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This Court is of the view that Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers the Search-Cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own procedure. It is not in dispute that on conjoint reading of Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, the candidates with less than 20 years of experience can be short-listed and called for interview.
MONICA ANAND KUMAR, HEMANT GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19703 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79289&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Proviso appended to Section 58[4][f] has to be read as a whole along with the Clauses [a] and [b] therein which would explain the real intendment of the phrase not utilized wholly or partly.
PROF. P.N. SHETTY VERSUS OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, UDUPI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19702 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79290&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the decision in the case of L.VE.Vairavan Chettiar [1965 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the Court found that there was nothing to show that the business had been abandoned and the assessee was continued to incur expenditure and it would come up and the business would be successful. In the said factual background, the Court held that the resultant loss being business loss is deductible.
M/S. MEC INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19701 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79232&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was not a case of complete lack of enquiry on the part of the AO rather the AO has conducted a detailed enquiry on this issue and called for all the relevant records from the bank for the purpose of examining the cost of construction of the hotel building.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA VERSUS M/S OM RUDRA PRIYA HOLIDAY RESORT PVT. LTD., C/O SARDAR CYCLE STORE, BAJARIYA, SAWAI MADHOPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19700 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79233&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Income Tax Act gives a precise definition to the term 'transfer'. Section 2(47)(ii) talks about extinguishment of rights. The Supreme Court, in Sanjeev Lal's case, is very clear that an agreement to sell would extinguish the rights and the same would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47).
KISHORBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19699 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79235&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
What would constitute as being unreasonably high-pitched, obviously differs from case to case.
ANUSHNA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HQRS -1 & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19698 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79237&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether the transactions were bogus or not, cannot be a pure question of fact having regard to the evidence on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS SANDEEP P. SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19697 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79238&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Neither of the decisions nor other decisions placed before us by the Counsel for the Petitioner, however, lays down the proposition in law that such requirement of hearing would include personal hearing.
NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19696 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79240&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 24 of the Benami Act pertains to notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction.
VIRENDRA RAMANLAL SONI Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19695 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 24, 147
-
Since Interest subsidy and Power subsidy received by assessee co. constitute 'capital receipts' and do not fall within the pre-amended definition of 'income' u/s 2(24), therefore directs exclusion from book profits for MAT purposes u/s 115JB.
Ankit Metal & Power Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19694 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
Crux of Section 19 of SICA is that where any waiver or concession is to be granted by the Central Government, State Government or the like under the scheme, the scheme would be circulated to such authority for its consent and only upon such consent being given, that such term in the scheme would be binding to such Government or authority.
Olympia Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19693 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 19
-
The new and amended method of accounting for NPAs was declared and notified in clear words. We therefore do not see any reason and ground to interfere with the finding on absence of failure to disclose full and true material facts.
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19692 (SC)
-
Interest income is to be taxed as income from other source, because interest on investment of surplus fund would not satisfy the principle of mutuality.
Swarn Jayanti Rail Nagar Flat Owners Association Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19691 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Sec.54 benefit to assessee-individual (a non- resident), against long term capital gains [LTCG] arising on transfer of residential property to a builder under a Collaboration Agreement is allowed.
Manisha Juneja Sawhney Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19690 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
CIT(A)'s order disallowing additional expenses of Rs.1026.08 million provided as expenditure by the assessee as no liability had arisen in the hands of the assesse is upheld.
ONGC Videsh Ltd Vs Addl. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19689 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Transaction has to be examined as a whole and not on the basis of one or two single facts.
Shri Sanat Kumar Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19688 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
Asessee had raised three specific grounds w.r.t validity of re-assessment u/s.147, vagueness in notices u/s.148 & 143(2) before the CIT(A), however, CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said grounds, but only adjudicated the grounds on merits regarding the addition made by the AO.
Shri N. Karuppusamy Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19687 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
partly allows assessee's (JV between Tata and Lockheed Martin) miscellaneous petition [MA] u/s. 254(2) for AY 2011-12, rectifies mistakes in the original order but retains the final decision taken by the Tribunal in the original order to the effect that business of the assessee was not set up till the end of previous year and hence, assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 2.10 crores as revenue expenses was not allowable.
Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostrutures Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19686 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2)
-
We noticed that assessee has completed the registration on 07/03/2009 and the document indicates that it was prepared on 02/03/2009. The registration formalities were completed only on 07/03/2009 and suitably modifying the document in hand writing.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2, KURNOOL VERSUS B. NAGA MAHESH, KURNOOL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19685 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76456&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.