-
HC - Addition u/s 40A(2) - Apart from the administrative service expenditure from sister concern as per agreement being motivated by business decision, there is no element of transfer of profit, particularly when it is pointed out that the payee had also paid cash at the tax rate as that of the Assessee. - No addition
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE. VERSUS M/S. TATA TOYO RADIATOR PVT. LTD., PUNE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19178 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78561&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The computer system cannot override the factual aspects, If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19176 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The said order seems to be a cut and paste order, taking pieces from here and there and as if quoting some of the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts would be enough for the final fact finding body.
Sri K.Devakar Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19175 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 115JB (pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012) is not applicable to a banking company (also insurance & electricity cos) . The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company. When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails. The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively (Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 (Ker) followed)
CIT vs. Union Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19167 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 115JB
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: Though s. 50C is a deeming provision and the AO is obliged to compute the capital gains by taking the valuation arrived at by the DVO in place of the actual consideration received by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the DVO's valuation before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing
Lovy Ranka vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19166 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: Law on how to determine the "FMV" (Fair Market Value) of shares issued by a closely held company explained. The fact that the company is loss-making does not mean that shares cannot be allotted at premium. The DCF method is a recognised method though it is not an exact science & can never be done with arithmetic precision. The fact that future projections of various factors made by applying hindsight view cannot be matched with actual performance does not mean that the DCF method is not correct
India Today Online Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19149 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 260A: The High Court cannot hear the appeal bipartite without framing any substantial question of law. It should either dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question or hear the parties after framing a question (see also PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (SC)
PCIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19148 (SC) · Section 260A
-
S. 43B: The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to "actual payment" of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to s. 43B (Eicher Motors 315 ITR 312 (MP) & Pennar Profiles (T&AP) approved)
CIT vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19147 (SC) · Section 43B
-
S. 260A: Dept directed to "bonafide apply mind" before filing appeals to the High Court. Concern & anguish expressed at the tendency of the Dept to file unnecessary appeals even though the issues are ex facie covered by decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Supreme Court. CBDT & Ministry of Finance directed to take needful action
PCIT vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19146 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 260A
-
ITAT - Salary received by individual in his NRE A/c in India for services rendered in Nigeria is not taxable in India on receipt basis u/s. 5(2) despite services rendered outside India.
Deepak Kumar Todis Vs DDIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19125 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s. 194-I on wharfage charges payment to the Maharashtra Maritime Board as the same is not akin to 'rent'.
Angre Port (P) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19124 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Addition to excess stock of gold jewellery cannot be made as there was no enquiry of department to find out the correctness of the bill as either bogus or fake.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS M/S HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19123 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Non-consideration of binding judicial precedent of High Court would constitute mistake apparent from record u/s 254.
M/S. AKM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-5 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19122 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 250: The CBDT is empowered to lay down broad guidelines for disposal of appeals by CsIT(A). However, it cannot offer 'incentives' to CsIT(A) for making enhancement and levying penalty. Such policy transgresses the exercise of quasi-judicial powers & is wholly impermissible and invalid u/s 119. The 'Incentives' have the propensity to influence the CsIT(A) and they will be tempted to pass an order in a particular manner so as to achieve a greater target of disposal
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19109 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
S. 68/69 Bogus Purchases: Even if the purchases are bogus, the entire purchase amount cannot be added. As the department had not disputed the assessee's sales & there was no discrepancy between the purchases and the sales, the purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trader. The addition has to be restricted to the extent of the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases (N.K .Industries 292 CTR 354 (Guj), N. K. Proteins 250 TM 22 (SC) distinguished)
PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19108 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68/69
-
S. 44BB: Amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by ONGC (service recipient), representing service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act (Mitchell Drilling International 380 ITR 130 (Del), CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dt 28.04.2008 & Circular No. 1/2014 dt 13.01.2014 followed)
DIT (IT) vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19107 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section 44BB
-
HC - Mortgage discharge in connection with property sale is not diversion at source but only application of income, therefore no deduction u/s. 48.
D.Zeenath Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19091 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 48
-
S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)
Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19083 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
S. 260A: There is a distinction between questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal (u/s 260¬A(2)(c)) and the questions framed by the Court (u/s 260¬A(3)). The High Court has to formulate substantial question of law and only thereafter hear the appeal on merits. If the High Court is of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it should record a categorical finding to that effect & dismiss the appeal in limine. However, it cannot, without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law, issue notice to the respondent, hear both parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismiss it. This is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure prescribed in s. 260¬A
PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19082 (SC) · Section 260A
-
S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)
Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19081 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147, 148
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.