-
HC - Application of the proviso to Section 92C(2) - Provisions amended vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 - The substituted proviso, which applied from 01.04.2002 erased the earlier proviso from the statute totally and granted an option to the assessee; but only insofar as adopting one of the prices from which the average price is determined; that too in cases of more than one price being determined under the most appropriate method.
M/S. TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS (PVT) LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16638 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75645&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Undisclosed investment u/s 69 - Loose papers related to the sale transactions of flats - Loose document is a dumb document as it does not give any particulars of the persons involved in the alleged transaction.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 VERSUS ASHOK MEHTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16637 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75651&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years to be set-off against current year's long term capital gains.
Gunnebo India Pvt. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16636 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Cash purchases of land to be disallowed u/s 40A(3) even though not claimed as 'business expense'; treating land purchase & sale transaction by assessee-individual as a business venture.
Shiv Raj Singh Bawa Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16635 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 40A(3)
-
HC - Determination of agricultural land sold - Though the certificate from Tehsildar may state that there is no cultivation carried on the lands as per the land records, but there is nothing on record to show that the land in question was put to use for any non-agricultural purposes. Assessee has also paid taxes. Land sold agricultural in nature.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS P. ASHOK KUMAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16634 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75492&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Additions made, to the extent confirmed, definitely leads to a finding of inaccurate particulars having been furnished which would enable invocation of Section 271(1)(c).
PARISONS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16632 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75612&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Claim of long term capital gains arising on sale of shares received as gift accepted and Sec 54F exemption granted.
Dev Kumar Roy Vs The Income-tax- Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16631 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
ITAT - Gain earned as acquired from IPO is to be assessed as Business Income since investments were made by the assessee as a trader and not as an investor.
NIRPAN SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 (2) (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16630 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69033&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Assessee to comply with ‘PAN-Aadhaar linking’ requirement for return filing for AY 2019-20.
Shreya Sen & Anr Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16629 (SC)
-
HC - Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS default can be invoked in assessee-Trust’s case only from 01.04.2019.
SRI. ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16628 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
ITAT - There is no restriction placed in section 54 that exemption is allowable only in respect of sale of one residential house.
Bipin N. Sagar Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16627 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54
-
ITAT - Assessee permitted to raise an additional ground before CIT(A) but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2 lakh as there were several ‘unjustifiable’ adjournments.
Euromonitor Research & Consulting (India) P. Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16625 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Where assessee firm's partners held shares in closely held company, on their own account and not on behalf of the firm, assessee firm is neither registered not beneficial shareholder to attract provisions of Sec 2(22)(e)
Golani Brothers Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16624 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - Merely stating that the case is covered under Section 153-C of the Act and the case has been notified under Section 153 of the Act would not be suffice and the same cannot be construed as the satisfaction recorded under Section 153-C of the Act.
MR. SHYAMRAJ SINGH, S/O SRI B.S. BALAJI SINGH, M/S SVK MINERALS, M/S SVK MINERALS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16623 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75576&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee did not have a business wholly or partly in securities - The loss claimed by the assessee on the sale of securities shall be allowed without any dis-allowance made under sub-section (4) of Section 94.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16622 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75577&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessee not having filed return of income AO would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. However, in such a case also, the primary requirement of the AO having a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment would apply.
MOHANLAL CHAMPALAL JAIN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1 (2), THANE & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16621 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75579&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Having accepted that the expenditure claimed was bogus, the ITAT cannot apply the GP Ratio which was entirely unwarranted.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-17, VERSUS M/S. WADHAWAN DESIGNS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16620 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75581&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Second limb of section 2(22)(e) contemplates is that, the creditor companies give a loan not directly to its shareholder but to any concern in which such shareholder has a substantial interest.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11, VERSUS M/S SUNJEWELS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16619 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75582&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital in form of accommodation entries: The transactions are clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. The reasoning is contrary to human probabilities. In the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment. The Tribunal's order is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order
PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16618 (HC-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Capital Gains vs. Business Profits: As per CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 gains on shares held for more than 12 months are treated as long-term capital gains and not as business profits. The fact that the amount invested in shares were out of borrowed funds and there were frequent and voluminous transactions is irrelevant
PCIT vs. Hardik Bharat Patel
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16617 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.