-
SC - Deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) available with respect to funds given to subsidiaries where the interest free funds available to assessee were sufficient to meet its investment.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16902 (SC) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
HC - Deeming fiction u/s. 50C dealing with stamp duty valuation as sale consideration, would be applicable while computing capital gains exemption u/s. 54EC.
Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16901 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 50C, 54EC
-
S. 250: The CBDT should reconsider the direction in the Central Action Plan of offering incentives to CsIT(A) to enhance assessments and levy penalty. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the CIT(A) has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the CIT(A) there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT
The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16900 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 250
-
ITAT - Solely on the basis of the statement of one family member, the addition was made in the case of all the family members, which cannot be done.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI VERSUS SMT. SHIVALI MAHAJAN, SMT. RINKU MAHAJAN, SHRI JATIN MAHAJAN, SHRI NITIN MAHAJAN, SMT. ANILA MAHAJAN, SHRI LALIT MAHAJAN AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16899 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71137&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40(A) - It cannot be contended that merely because there was an Agreement between the Assessee Company and the partnership firm, the Research and Advisory fees made by the Company to the partnership firm, in which one of the Directors had a substantial interest, ought to be allowed wholly or partly as a business expenditure.
M/S. PATTERSON & CO PVT. LIMITED. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V (1) CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16898 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76072&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - On the admission of the Assessee himself that money was his own undisclosed income brought back in the country through alleged NRI gifts was the best evidence and was sufficient to bring it to tax in the hands of the Assessee.
M/S. SWATHI ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (2) CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16897 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76073&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - The attempt to blame the Chartered Accountant cannot result in the assessee's exoneration, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed.
M/S. JIVANLAL AND SONS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16896 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75623&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ 36(1)(iii): If the interest free funds available to the assessee are sufficient to meet its investment, it could be presumed that the investments are made from the interest free funds available with the assessee and not from borrowed funds
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16893 (SC) · Section 14A/ 36(1)(iii)
-
S. 220(6) Stay of Demand: The ‘trinity’ of prima facie case, financial stringency & balance of convenience are basic tents which are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition. The CBDT's Circulars & Instructions are in the nature of guidelines & cannot substitute or override the basic tenets. The AO is required to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way. Even if the assessee has not specifically invoked the three parameters for grant of stay, it is incumbent upon the AO to do so & pass a speaking order
Mrs. Kannammal, Jayanthi Seeman vs. ITO, PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16892 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 220(6)
-
Non-taxable capital receipt vs. Business Profits: Test of human probabilities has to be applied to decide whether what is apparent is real. Tax authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at documents. They are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality. The agreement has to make commercial sense. The plea that "coining of concept" is a valuable right worth Rs. 10 cr is too naive & beyond human probabilities to merit judicial acceptance
Ashish Tandon vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16891 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
HC - In case of JDA, capital gains on property transferred by the land owner would accrue in the year in which approval was received from development authority and not in year in which license was given to the developer.
Shri.R.J.V.Kaiwar Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16886 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Interest under hire purchase to be recognised on EMI basis and not on Sum of Digit basis based on books of accounts.
M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16885 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Compensation payment to prospective buyers for surrender of allotted commercial spaces by builder is allowable business expenditure.
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16884 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s 11 available to BDA for providing concessional housing to economically weaker sections.
Bangalore Development Authority Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16883 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 11
-
ITAT - Future development expense allowable to the real estate developer in respect of completed projects based on the project completion method.
M/s. Ashiana Housing Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16882 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - A salaried individual cannot claim deduction u/s. 24 for the whole amount of interest in respect co-owned property 'let-out' to mother.
Shri Hitesh H Budhbhatti Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16881 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 24
-
ITAT - There is no justification for treating the whole gross receipts of foreign income instead of gross total income earned from foreign sources so as to grant deduction u/s. 80-RR.
Prof. Gopinath Muthukad, Muthukad Magical Entertainers Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16880 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 80-RR
-
HC - Reopening quashed since two alleged lacunae or irregularities could not be a sufficient reason for issuing a repeat (2nd) Notice u/s 148.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GAY TRAVELS (P) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16879 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76041&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The new system of e-filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) were introduced by Revenue only wef 01.03.2016 and the assessee filed his appeal before learned CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 manually but the said appeal was filed within time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act.
MR. UMESH A MISHRA VERSUS ITO 10 (3) (3) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16877 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71102&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - CIT(A) has no power to adjudicate the issue by introducing a new source of income and his order has to be confined to those items of income which is subject matter of original assessment.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI. VERSUS VERSATILE POLYTECH P. LTD., NEW DELHI. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16876 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71104&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.