-
ITAT - There has been no wilful or intentional delay on part of the assessee in filing appeal before CIT(A) owing to company's demerger. Delay condoned.
Wipro Chandrika Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16455 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
HC - There was legitimate nexus between Investigation Wing report and Income Escapement as such reassessment proceedings upheld.
Avirat Star Homes Venture Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2) and ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16454 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Exemption u/s 10AA will be available to ‘new’ SEZ unit even though assessee earlier availed Sec. 10A benefit.
MACQUARIE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD Vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16453 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10AA, 10A
-
ITAT - FTS under India-France DTAA has to be given a restrictive meaning similar to that of the expression "FTS” appearing in the India-UK DTAA.
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16452 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Since the amount of expenses represented on account of loss on sale of fixed assets and travelling expenses cannot be linked with the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning the exempted income, therefore to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s 14A.
RAMNIKLAL H. AMBANI VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 5 (2) , AHMEDABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16451 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69286&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Scope of limited scrutiny assessment - There is bar on the jurisdiction of the AO to go beyond the subjected issue(s) under limited scrutiny cases, however, he is not restrained to adjudicate the issue(s) raised by the assessee.
THAKUR RAJ KUMAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16450 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
HC - Definition of ‘eligible assessee’ u/s 144C would equally apply to the proceedings remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, DELHI VERSUS NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS GLOBERIAN INDIA PVT. LTD.)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16448 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75227&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Section 234E imposing a fee for delayed filing of statement of tax deducted at source are not ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution.
BISWAJIT DAS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16446 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75232&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Length of delay alone is not always the criteria to reject an appeal. There is nothing on record brought by the Revenue to show that the appellant had purposely and willfully delayed in filing the appeal. Delay condoned.
M/S. RATTHA HOLDINGS COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16445 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75217&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Fixed place permanent establishments under India-USA DTAA - The discharge of vital responsibilities relating to finalization of commercial terms, or at least a prominent involvement in the contract finalization process clearly revealed that the GE carried on business in India through its fixed place of business (i.e the premises), through the premises - Existence of PE in India established.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC., GE GENBACHER GMBH & CO., GE ENGINE SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD, GE PACKAGED POWER INC., GE ENGINE SERVICES DISTRIBUTION LLC, GE JAPAN LTD., GE ELECTRIC CANADA COMPANY, GE AIRCRAFT ENGINE SERVICES LTD. GE AVIATION SERVICE OPERATION LLP, GE AVIATION MATERIALS LP, GE CALEDONIAN LTD., GE ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC. GE MULTILIN, GE PACIFIC PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , DELHI-I
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16444 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75219&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since land and building earlier in the possession of the Assessee continued to remain with it, therefore any receipt from transfer of TDR as a compensation from transfer of development rights cannot be taxed as a capital gain.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17 VERSUS SHRI MANOHAR H. KAKWANI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16443 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75222&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Search u/s 132 to be valid, the warrant and notice should be issued in the name of the successor only, however in the present case, had been issued in the name of a non-existent entity which could not be said to be mere clerical mistake.
M/S. NAHAR ENTERPRISES VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (OSD- I) AND DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 (4) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. NAHAR ENTERPRISES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16442 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69572&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since the assessee being a juridical person, even if there is some element of personal use of car by the directors, it continues to be for business purposes of the assessee nevertheless - Claim of expenses allowed.
ANJANI SYNTHETICS LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) (2) , AHMEDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69577&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee obtained only accommodation entries in the garb of STCG from transfer of penny stock since assessee could not furnish Demat account details - Also paper-trail through contract- notes not relevant.
Rajkumar B. Agarwal Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16440 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Activity of renting out Property (Kalyanamandapam) by a charitable trust could be construed as only incidental to the attainment of its main object and assessee could take advantage of Sec. 11(4).
AVM Charities Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16439 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - Even if one is to go by rough sheet containing the questioned entries found by the search team, the CIT (A) has rightly inferred that, the nature of transaction is not loan but a business advance for purchase of machinery - No penalty u/s 271D and 271E.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-13 (3) (4) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S MUEZ HEST INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16438 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69556&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Once the advances are held to be business advances they are allowable as deduction either u/s. 37(1) or u/s. 28 of the Act as business loss. Deduction cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee had suomoto written off the advances.
MR. JACKIE SHROFF VERSUS A.C.I.T RANGE – 16 (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16430 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amount received by the assessee from his father during family settlement is not unusual and cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SHRI BASANT PODDAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16429 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75158&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - In case of a bank even when there is an appreciation of the value, it does not enure to the Bank as income and, hence, the valuation has to be made as stipulated by the RBI.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR VERSUS M/S. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16428 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75161&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No write off claim of a bad investment allowable where the assessee was holding portfolios as investments.
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. TRICHUR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COCHIN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16426 (HC-KERALA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75163&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.