-
Necessary details were called for by the authority concerned in connection with the assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 142(1) . In response to such notice, the writ applicant had furnished complete details as indicated from various documentary evidence on record.
JARUN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19624 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79101&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner was informed that the refund cannot be issued in view of Section 143(1D), since notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is already issued. A reference is also made to a draft assessment order for the year under consideration, which if ultimately finalized would give rise to a tax demand from the Petitioner instead of department paying refund.
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1 (3) (2) AND ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19623 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79102&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Taxability of ESOP-shares settlement.
Vernan Trust Vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19622 (SC)
-
In case of sale of FSI/TDR rights by the assessee to the developers which have accrued in favour of the assessee following promulgation of Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai, 1991 and the said developmental right were generated by the plot itself and there is no cost of acquisition and therefore not liable for any capital gain tax.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25 (2) (3), MUMBAI VERSUS MR. DEEPAK TALAKSHI SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19621 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76271&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the details were culled out from the books maintained by the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, did not offer convincing explanation before the AO, but raised a plea before the Tribunal that they are willing to produce all the names of their customers as well as their workers who can be examined. Tribunal was convinced with the stand taken by the assessee and therefore, granted an opportunity to the assessee to do so and called for a remand report.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III, MADRAS. VERSUS SHRI S.V. SREENIVASAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19620 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79088&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a reading of the assessment order dated 17.03.2015, it is evidently clear that books of accounts and all the details were furnished to the AOr which was perused by the AO and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. ANUGRAHA VALVE CASTINGS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19619 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79086&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the Assessment Order, the orders passed by CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that the two Authorities below and the Tribunal, proceeded on the legal principle without making an in-depth study on the facts situation.
M/S. INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 2 (2), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19618 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79085&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a litigant raises a legal issue before a court or a tribunal as a principal ground of challenge and without prejudice and not in derogation with the said plea, the litigant is also entitled to raise alternate submissions.
M/S. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD II (5), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19617 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79090&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Exercise of sending the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment pursuant to the impugned order of the PCIT under Section 263 is not warranted.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 VERSUS M/S. FORUM AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19616 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79091&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
NCLT only examines whether the scheme is a lawful contract and does not examine the scheme minutely with a tooth comb.
Dalmia Power Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19615 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Since the amendment is prospective in nature, therefore Revenue's contention that amendment in Sec.149 is retrospective as its procedural in nature is rejected.
BRAHM DATT Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19614 (SC)
-
No positive material was brought on record by the AO to decline the explanation of the assessee with regard to receipt of cash during the year in respect of the cheque which could not be deposited in the bank account in the A.Y.2011-12.
MS. JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19613 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76244&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not brought anything on record to assess any income over and above the returned income filed by the assessee. AO in the assessment order could not bring into fore as to how the seized material has been analyzed and to prove as to how the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has arisen.
RISHABH BUILDWELL P. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE GHAZIABAD. AND SANJEEV JAIN, 196, RAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE GHAZIABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19612 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76246&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is seen that the assessee had shown the shares as investment in the books of account and there was no trading activities. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held that it cannot be allowed as deduction for the purpose of computing the profit of the assessee.
SMT. CHANDRA RAMESH VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19611 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts as noted, are not seriously in dispute. The assessee’s share application money remained with its AE for a considerable period of time before the shares were allotted. AO, therefore, treated this transaction as one of loans.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 VERSUS M/S. STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19610 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79063&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Taxing notional rental income on legally 'unoccupiable' commercial property is declined.
Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19609 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
We are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and that of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were specifically relied upon by the counsel for the assessee during the course of the hearing of the appeal, therein constitutes a mistake apparent from record, which renders the order passed while disposing off the appeal in context of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254.
MUKUND LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 (2) (2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19608 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76225&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The DTAA clearly provided that the taxes in India means the income tax including surcharge there as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Clause 11 of the Finance Act 2018 clearly explains that the education cess is nothing but additional surcharge.
OC NL INVEST COOPERATIEF U.A, HYDERABAD VERSUS DCIT, INCOME TAX-2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19607 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76226&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO / CIT(A) has not made any negative/adverse remarks or finding against the aforesaid documents produced before the AO. However, they have brushed aside these documents and has relied heavily upon the general investigation report of the department, which has not found any wrong doing on the part of the assessee or her broker who sold the shares.
SMT. ANITA AGARWAL VERSUS ITO, WARD – 34 (3), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19606 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76227&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the approval given by the JCIT, Meerut is juxtaposed against the directions and provisions of the Income Tax Act pertaining to completion to assessment u/s 153B(1) of the Act, it can be said that the approval given by the JCIT is invalid.
RISHABH BUILDWELL P. LTD., R.G.V. FININVEST P. LTD., SHRISTHI COMPUTERS P. LTD. AND AGGARWAL CAPFIN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19605 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76228&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.