-
Since ejusdem generis is applied, therefore depreciation u/s. 32 on 'customer contracts' is allowed.
Compass Group (India) Support Services P. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19544 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 32
-
Capital gains addition u/s.45(4) with respect to revaluation of asset upon conversion of assessee-firm into a company is deleted by ITAT.
Vishal Engineering and Galvanizers Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19543 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 45(4)
-
CIT's exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 when assessment order passed by AO was void for AY 2010-11 is quashed.
Pioneer Distilleries Limited Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19542 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 263
-
Re-opening on Infosys based on subsequent year's assessment is quashed.
INFOSYS BPO LTD Vs THE ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19541 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
S. 254: Surprised that how, after so much of case laws on the issue and amendment of Rule 24 itself, the ld Members of the Tribunal, even now commit the folly of dismissing appeals for want of prosecution and for default of appearance on the part of the assessees. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution is not only illegal but also entails further litigation by compelling the assessee to move for setting aside the ex parte order. Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the President of the ITAT & Law Secretary in Ministry of Law and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all Members of the ITAT and new appointees in at the time of their recruitment itself. The President may also get it circulated to all existing Members of the ITAT so that such orders resulting in serious miscarriage of justice should not be repeated by any Member of the Tribunal
Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19540 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254
-
S. 92C/ Rule 10B: If the TPO is not satisfied with the assessee's method of benchmarking royalty payments, he should independently benchmark the ALP by adopting any one of the prescribed methods. He cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis. TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of royalty and not the CUP method. If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP
ACIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19539 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92C
-
S. 276B TDS Prosecution: Mere delay in depositing TDS within the time limit prescribed in S. 200 & Rule 30 is an offense sufficient to attract s. 276B. The fact that the TDS has been deposited subsequently does not absolve the offense. The fact that penalty u/s 221 has not been levied is not relevant because there is an admitted delay in depositing TDS.
Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19538 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections 221, 276B
-
S. 56(2)(viib): The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the 'NAV Method'. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors. The ‘DCF Method’ is based on projections. The AO cannot fault the valuation on the basis that the real figures don't support the projections. Also, the fact that independent investors have invested in the start-up proves that the FMV as determined by the assessee is proper
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19537 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 6, 68, 69: Law explained on (i) when an Indian citizen or person of Indian origin can be said to have come on "visit to India" so as to qualify as a "Non Resident" u/s 6(6) r.w. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003 & (ii) whether amount found deposited in a foreign bank is taxable in India u/s 68 & 69 if the assessee is a "Not Ordinary Resident"
PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19536 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 6, 68, 69
-
Assessee nowhere fall within the definition of the Co-operative Bank. The assessee is not a recognized bank in view of the provision of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). There is a difference between the Co-operative bank and in the Credit Co-operative Society. If the Assessee is not in the banking business then in the said circumstances, no doubt the assessee is entitled to raise the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act.
ITO-21 (2) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19535 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76081&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of this fact that the assessee has furnished the relevant documents u/s 92D(3) r.w.r. 10D of the Act. The penalty is not laviable specifically on the facts and circumstances when the assessee submitted all the necessary/relevant information to the TPO which was not acceptable if any by TPO.
DCIT-19 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DAUJI AND CO., MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19534 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that money received in the form of preference share capital has come through FDI route with the proper approval of FIPB and RBI by filing requisite statutory forms and complying with the requisite conditions prescribed thereon.
ITO-15 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. LUXORA REALTORS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19533 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76078&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are in no confusion to hold that there was no infirmity in the exercise done by the Commissioner, Income Tax II purportedly u/s 263 because the provisions of Section 263(c) suitably empowers the Commissioner to pass such order even if any appeal is pending but with a caveat, that the order passed under Section 263 shall govern only such matters which was neither a subject matter nor decided in appeal.
MUNNI RAI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II PATNA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PATNA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19532 (HC-PATNA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78966&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the DRP is an order reducing the variation proposed in the draft assessment order dated 25.02.2015. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. In any event, the order passed by the DRP was not impugned before the Tribunal rather what was impugned was the assessment order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider on merits whether the said assessment order was justified or not.
M/S. INDIA TRIMMINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 1, COIMBATORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19531 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere nondisclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment.
The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19529 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Since the housing or other activities should be integral part of highway project in order to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4). Therefore, deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to State Corporation undertaking township project is denied.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19522 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 80IA(4)
-
Since a flat is sold by company to a director-shareholder, therefore unpaid price of flat will be taxable as deemed dividend.
Bhagavathy Velan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19515 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When a just claim is put forth by a citizen, the State will not plead limitation to defeat it.
Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19514 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 264
-
S. 40A(9): The provision is not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. Even contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds have to be allowed as a deduction if they are genuine in nature
PCIT vs. State Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19513 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Speculation Loss: Law on when an amendment can be said to be clarificatory/ retrospective explained. The amendment to the Explanation to s. 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 with effect from 1 April 2015 is not clarificatory or retrospective. Consequently, loss occurred to the assessee as a result of its activity of trading in shares (a loss arising from the business of speculation) is not capable of being set off against the profits which it had earned against the business of futures and options since the latter did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business
Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19512 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.