-
No doubt in the present case, AO has applied for such approval which was granted on 29.03.2014, but before grant of approval, the AO has already issued notice on 28.03.2014 which is without any jurisdiction.
PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT 2 VERSUS ASHOKBHAI JAIN PROP. OF SUPER JEWELS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19664 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79202&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The power to confiscate and consequent forfeiture of rights or interests are drastic being penal in nature, and therefore, such statutes are to be read very strictly.
Niharika Jain Vs Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19663 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Intimation u/s143(3) could not be treated as an order and hence petition u/s 264 was not maintainable for such intimation.
Epcos Electronic Components S A Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19662 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264
-
The benefit which accrued to the assessee not only in the AY under consideration, but also the earlier AY has been taken away by the Tribunal.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P) Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19661 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Prosecution u/s 276C for tax evasion: If the assessee's appeal against levy of s. 271(1)(c) penalty for concealment of income is allowed & has become final, the quashing of prosecution is automatic. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution and not indulge in the empty formality of directing the assessee to approach the trial Magistrate (K. C. Builders 265 ITR 562 (SC) followed)
System India Castings vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19660 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · Sections 271(1)(c), 276C
-
S. 254(2) MA: If an appeal against the order of the ITAT has been filed in the High Court and the same has been admitted by the High Court, a Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) seeking rectification and recall of the order is not maintainable. The MA is maintainable only if the appeal is pending and has not been admitted (RW Promotions 376 ITR 126 (Bom) distinguished, Muni Seva Ashram 38 TM.com 110 (Guj) followed)
Ratanlal C. Bafna vs. JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19659 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 254(2)
-
When a claim was processed at length after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, and the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment.
ROYAL INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2) (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19658 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79189&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings recorded by the appellate tribunal that the assessee submitted report of registered valuer vide dated 23.09.2013 during assessment proceedings and the value adopted by the registered valuer was ₹ 99/per sq.mt. from the assessment order, it is also discernable that the AO has completely ignore the report of the registered valuer and without any discussion thereon estimated the cost at ₹ 30/per sq.mt. without any reasonable basis and justified reasoning.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS JIGNESH BHAGWANDAS PATEL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19657 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79192&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding of fact has been recorded by two revenue authorities that the payments made by the assessee on a single day did not exceed ₹ 20,000/- to a person and if, that be so, there could not have been any disallowance under Section 40A(3).
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 VERSUS RJD BUILDCON LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19656 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79193&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of fact recorded by the tribunal that no material was recovered during the search as per the provisions of section 153(C), which could have been treated as incriminating material and which have been made as a base for supporting the action of the department.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT-1 VERSUS AMIT VASANTLAL SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19655 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79194&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04, three substantial questions of law raised in this appeal were considered and they were decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. While allowing the expenditure on Research & Development, after analysing the facts of assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. TVS MOTORS LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19654 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79191&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice u/s 148 is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same.
BIPINBHAI BACHUBHAI KATARIA L/R OF LATE BACHUBHAI RAMBHAI KATARIA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19653 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79195&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Royalty is taxable in India if the payer an Indian resident, except where the royalty is payable in respect of a right, property, information or service used for the payer's business outside India or for earning income outside India.
Rackspace US Inc Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19652 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
A pronouncement by this Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court.
The Peerless Gen.Fin And Investment Company Limited Vs Commnr. Of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19651 (SC)
-
On a perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal, we find that what weighed in the mind of the Tribunal is primarily because the quantum assessment had attained finality and that the assessee had not challenged the said assessment. This, in our considered view, is an incorrect interpretation because both the quantum assessment as well as the penalty proceedings are independent of each other.
R. REVATHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI CENTRAL-I, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19650 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79179&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice was issued u/s 148 on the ground that the holding company ceased to hold whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company, the exemption granted has to be withdrawn as per provision of Section 47A. The original sale of the textile unit has to be treated as transfer and net worth has to be subjected to capital gains treating this transactions as a slump sales as per provisions of Section 50B.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -I, COIMBATORE. VERSUS M/S. SHIVA DISTILLERIES LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19649 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79180&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The test laid down by Lord Cave L.C. in British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd., was to the effect that when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, there was very good reason for treating such expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue, but to capital.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VERSUS SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19648 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79181&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner has sought a clarification regarding the erroneous payment of the surcharge. Indeed the Court finds that the payment of tax on FTS under the DTAA included surcharge and cess etc. There was no requirement that once the tax rate at the appropriate slab was paid, to separately pay the surcharge and cess.
M/S. EPCOS ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS S.A VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19647 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79182&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Court is unable to find any legal error committed by the ITAT in dismissing the appeal of the present Appellant.
SUSHIL BANSAL VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -19
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19646 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79183&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The impugned transaction cannot be regarded as colorable device merely on the reasoning that there is no tax liability arising in the hands of the assessee.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19645 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.