-
HC - Reassessment u/s 147 -Department had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. - Notice u/s 148 is set aside
RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (4), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18075 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77388&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Receipt of bonus share - Shares given by company in proportion to the holding of equity capital by shareholders would, in the absence of express provision to be contrary be treated as capital and not income. AO has merely proceeded on the basis that the origin of the bonus shares being the shares held by the assessee by way of stock-in-trade, necessarily the bonus shares would also partake the same character.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 4 VERSUS M/S. ASHOK APPARELS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18074 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77389&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 as concerned employee was in the employment of the assessee and not of the US based company contrary to what the department contends.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX27 VERSUS SMT. SUPRIYA SUHAS JOSHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18073 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Preliminary steps towards the fulfillment of its purpose e.g. key personnel appointments, indicates that assessee had set up its business - Deduction u/s. 37 available.
Indian Railway Stations Development Corporation Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18061 (HC-DELHI)
-
Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)
P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18060 (SC)
-
ITAT - Reopening of assessment - No merit in the assessment so framed U/s 143(3) without issue of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. Main ground of reassessment being null and void in absence of issue of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act and also issue of notice U/s 148 without proper sanction U/s 151(2).
I.T.O., WARD 3 (1), JAIPUR. VERSUS SHRI HANS RAJ SHARMA AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18059 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73542&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005.
MANJEET KUMAR HUF PROP. RAWALPINDI JEWELLERS C/O. MANOJ MITTAL, ADVOCATE VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE- KARNAL
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18058 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Commencement of business - The petitioner’s activity, which it claims to be preliminary steps towards the fulfillment of the purpose, which is embodied in the MoU clearly indicates that it had set up its business and that these steps were for the ultimate fulfillment of its purposes, which was the preparation of development plans leading to the projects. - Expenses duly allowable.
INDIAN RAILWAY STATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18057 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77303&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 50C Capital Gains: The assessee cannot avoid the impact of s. 50C by claiming that his s. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation. Such interpretation renders s. 50C redundant
Jagdish C. Dhabalia vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18053 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
-
Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)
P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18052 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that TDS u/s.194A not applicable on payment of interest by a State owned housing development co. for delayed delivery of plot.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18046 (SC)
-
HC - Expenses incurred by assessee-company on abandoned project relating to setting up of a factory allowable u/s 37(1)
Graviss Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18045 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
ITAT - Capital-gains - Date on letter of allotment of rights in property is relevant date for determining period of holding of the property and not date on sale agreement.
Shri Keyur Hemant Shah Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18044 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Provisions for future expenses relating Lump Sum Turnkey Projects is allowable as reversal of expenditure in future could not deprive the assessee to claim legitimate business expenditure.
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-10(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18043 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Benami Transactions: After amendment, the onus of proving a benami transaction rests entirely on the shoulders of the owner/ benamidar. Before amendment, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Benamidar and beneficial owner. Once both are able to discharge their burden of proof as per amended law, then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Once the burden shits upon the IO, the principles of general law available prior to amendment would apply (Imp judgements referred)
Akashdeep, IO, vs. Manpreet Estates LLP
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18033 (PBPT)
-
If an amount (Dharmada, Charity) is paid at the time of the sale transaction for a purpose other than the price of the goods, it cannot form part of the transaction value. Such payment is not for the transaction of sale and cannot be treated as consideration for the goods. The fact that the payment is compulsory upon purchase does not mean that it is involuntary because the purchaser purchases the goods out of his own volition (All imp judgements referred)
D. J. Malpani vs. CCE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18032 (SC)
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: The judgement in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) is distinguishable on facts & does not apply to a case where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons
Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18031 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
S. 201(1) TDS: The time limit specified in s. 201(3) & (4) for passing orders does not apply to cases where payments are made to non-residents. In cases of payments made to non-residents, an order passed after one year from the end of the FY in which the proceedings were initiated is void ab initio and liable to be quashed
Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18030 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 201(1)
-
ITAT - Assessee has submitted all the documentary evidences to substantiate the purchases so made, under these facts and circumstances, merely making of estimated addition of 15% will not attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c).
SHRI ALOK HALDIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18029 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73455&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since no assessment was pending on the date of search, thus assessment u/s 153A is not permissible solely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and statement recorded u/s 133A.
POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18028 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73457&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.