-
Revenue intend to adjust the refund of earlier years or subsequent years. ITAT do not see any urgency of passing any order staying the outstanding demand at this stage, because, the application of the assessee for grant of stay is pending before the Pr.CIT.
M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) VERSUS DCIT, CIR. 2 (1) (1) VADODARA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19604 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76229&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 96- The exemption is complete if the compensation is paid under an Award after the owner is denied ownership/possession of land, building etc pursuant to compulsory acquisition under Act 30 of 2013.
MADAPARAMBIL VARKEY VARGHESE VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI AND UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19603 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79050&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254(1)/(2): The fact that the judges indicate a decision during the hearing or even dictate a judgement in open court gives no right to the litigant. Judges can change or alter their decision at any time until the judgement is signed & sealed. A MA on the ground that the ITAT Members stated a particular decision during the hearing but did the opposite in the order is not maintainable
Kamaljit Singh Prop. Dhanoa Brothers vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19602 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 254(1)/(2)
-
S. 292BB: If the assessee objects to the AO's jurisdiction but his AR later conveys no-objection, it means that the assessee has withdrawn his objection. Submission that the AR had no authority to convey no-objection and cannot bind the assessee is not acceptable. Once the assessee empowers his AR to appear before authorities, all of the AR's concessions are binding on the assessee (Himalayan Coop Group Hsg Soc 2015 7 SCC 373 distinguished)
K. S. Cold Storage vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19601 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 292BB
-
Capital vs. Revenue Receipt: Damages received for breach of development agreement are capital in nature & not chargeable to tax. The only right that accrues to the assessee who complains of breach is right to file a suit for recovery of damages from the defaulting party. A breach of contract does not give rise to any debt. A right to recover damages is not assignable because it is not a chose-in-action. Such a mere 'right to sue' is neither a capital asset u/s 2(14) nor is it capable of being transferred & is therefore not chargeable under u/s 45 of the Act (All imp judgements referred)
Chheda Housing Development Corporation vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19600 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Cash advances cannot be deemed as ‘Undisclosed Income’ for the purpose of section 271AAB.
SHRI ASHISH KUMAR KANODIA, SHRI KAILASH KUMAR KANODIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19599 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76190&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The hoardings are temporary structures and are made with angles of steel and iron rods to affix them to the ground since these are vulnerable to rain, storm, theft and other damages. As such, affixation of the same using steel angles and iron rods was a necessity else the assessee would have not received any advertising orders. To receive advertising orders, these hoardings were required to be maintained by the assessee in a good quality condition.
ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19598 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76191&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The contents of the addendum to the contract supports the contention of the assessee that the assessee was entitled to raise the initial bill only after completion of 30% of the work awarded.
M/S SRM SITES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -14 MUMBAI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-7 (2) (4), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19597 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76192&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the bank statement shows that only a part of the deposits and withdrawals have been shown in the regular accounts and the assessee has not disclosed the entire deposits and withdrawals. ITAT find neither the assessee has constructed the house property during the year as claimed nor deposited the long term capital gain of above amount in the specified capital gain accounts scheme.
VIPUL KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 34 (1) NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19596 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76194&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Tribunal has come to a conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in payment of fees to ICICI Ltd. had nothing to do with the expansion of the capital base of the company and that the Assessee had clearly made out a case that it was for restructuring of its loan and was by way of a revenue expenditure.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VERSUS SESA INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19595 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79022&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From a plain reading of the provisions from 115O to 115QA, it is seen that Section 115 O is a charging section on its own.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19594 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's challenge against reopening notice by Hyderabad based AO is refused.
HSBC Holdings PLC Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 and ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19593 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT should take appropriate steps and expedite hearing of appeals which are pending for a long time, especially in cases wherein the appeal has been pending for over 10 years. ITAT is directed to adjudicate the matter at the earliest, preferably within four months from the passing of the order.
NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS ITALIA SPA Vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19592 (HC-DELHI)
-
Sec. 271(1)(c) penalty levy in the hands of assessee-individual (a salaried employee),w.r.t treatment of gains arising on sale of stock appreciation rights(SARs) is deleted.
Shri.Soundarrajan Parthasarathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19591 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Since there was no exempt income whatsoever earned by assessee, therefore there could be no disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A.
Chayadeep Enterprises LLP Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19590 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 14A
-
Sec.271B penalty levy for non-production of audit report by assessee-society is upholded by ITAT.
Peroorkada Service Co- operative Bank Ltd Vs The Income Tax officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19589 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
The appellant had furnished the copies of contract notes, Demat statement, Bank Statement, broker’s ledger. The transactions in listed shares took place through a registered share broker, namely M/s. Sosha Credit Pvt. Ltd. The purchase of shares was acquired through public offer by way of direct subscription in Initial Public offering.
SMT. APARNA MISRA VERSUS ITO, WARD – 23 (4), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19588 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76184&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On perusal of the above Instruction, it is noted that the CBDT had only informed the field officers that a button 'Penny Stock' has been added on their Individual Transaction Screen to display information related to penny stock, including the investigation report of the Kolkata Investigation Directorate.
TANISH DEALERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19587 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76185&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the CIT (A), present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
DCIT, CIRCLE 20 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. PUNJ LLOYD AVIATION PRIVATE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19586 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76187&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
n the instant case, the only circumstance relied on by the respondent in support of the charge levelled against the petitioners is that, even though accused filed the returns, yet, it failed to pay the self-assessment tax along with the returns. This circumstance even if accepted as true, the same does not constitute the offence u/s 276C (2).
M/S. VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1) BANGALORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19585 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79015&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.