-
ITAT - It is the income of the eligible projects alone which should be considered on standalone basis, rather than the income under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession for Builder’s Sec. 80IB(10) claim.
V.B Patil Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16293 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80IB(10)
-
HC - Stamp-duty cannot be the basis for valuation u/s. 50C for computing capital-gains on assignment of development rights but it should based on the amount actually received by assessee.
The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula Shah Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16292 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C
-
HC - Prosecution u/s. 276C(2) for non-payment of determined tax was not valid since assessee was agitating his case before CIT(A) / ITAT.
Sayarmull Surana Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16291 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 56(2)(vii) is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent money laundering of unaccounted income & does not apply to bona fide business transaction done out of business exigency. The difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) (CBDT Circulars & case laws referred)
ACIT vs. Subhodh Menon
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16290 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
S. 194-IA TDS: The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in s. 194-IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed. Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person
Vinod Soni vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16289 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194-IA
-
ITAT - Share allotment under 'rights issue' at less than fair market value in a family owned company cannot be taxed u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c).
Kumar Pappu Singh Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16282 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
S. 4/ 145: Law on accrual on income, matching concept & principles of Revenue Recognition as per Accounting Standards (AS-9, AS-22) explained in the context of sale of prepaid mobile cards (All important judgements referred)
CIT vs. Shyam Telelink Ltd (Delhi High Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16249 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 4, 145
-
ITAT - Software development expenditure for application software is revenue in nature.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-2 (3) , KOLKATA VERSUS I.T.C. INFOTECH INDIA LTD.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16232 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68757&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Partner whose friend’s wife received the advance had indirectly benefited from the advance received by the assessee from the company. Additions u/s 2(22)(e) confirmed.
M/S. SUBHAVARSHA INFOTECH VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. SUBHAVARSHA INFOTECH
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16231 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68761&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Surrender of rights of close relatives in favour of the another close relative is for exempt u/s 56(2)(vii)(c). Gifts received from close relatives u/s 56(2)(v) are outside the scope of 56(2).
SRI KUMAR PAPPU SINGH VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KKS TOWERS, ANDHRA PRADESH
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16230 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68764&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee had the option to opt for the 'Initial assessment year' for claiming deduction u/s 80IA and hence, loss or depreciation in the year earlier to 'initial assessment year' already absorbed against the profit of other business could not be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible of the assessee.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS LOVELY FRAGRANCES
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16229 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68765&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Absurd or illogical interpretations cannot be pleaded and become pretence and excuses to escape penalty. “Bonafides” have to be shown and cannot be assumed. Penalty u/s 271(1) confirmed.
PETROLEUM SPORTS PROMOTION BOARD VERSUS ITO (E) WARD-2 (4) , CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16226 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68698&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: If the holding of shares is D-mat account cannot be disputed then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has also not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Once the assessee produced all relevant evidence to substantiate the transaction of purchase, dematerialization and sale of shares then, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record the same cannot be held as bogus transaction merely on the basis of statement of one Anil Agrawal recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein there is a general statement of providing bogus long term capital gain transaction to the clients without stating anything about the transaction of allotment of shares by the company to the assessee
Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16217 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(38)
-
S. 2(47) Transfer: The reduction of share capital of a company by way of reducing the face value of each share from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500 amounts to "extinguishment of rights" and is a "transfer" u/s 2(47) of the Act. The assessee is eligible to claim a capital loss therefrom (Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs. CIT 228 ITR 163 (SC) & other judgements followed)
Since it is settled law that mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for issuing of a notice under section 147/148 of the Act, therefore, we do not propose to burden out judgment with the said judgments. In fact, as stated above, counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this principle of law.”
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16216 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 2(47)
-
S. 147/ 148: A report of the Revenue audit party is merely information and opinion. It is not new or fresh or tangible material. If the reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion, it means it is issued on change of opinion which is not permissible
FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16215 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
S. 254(1): The ITAT should give independent reasons showing consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. An appellate order which affirms the order of the lower authority need not be a very detailed order. Nevertheless, there should be some indication in the order passed by the appellate authority of due application of mind to the contentions raised by the asseseee in the context of findings of the lower authority which were the subject matter of the challenge before it
Cheryl J. Patel vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16199 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
S. 47(xiiib) r.w.s 47A(4): The conversion of a company into a LLP constitutes a "transfer". If the conditions of s. 47(xiiib) are not satisfied, the transaction is chargeable to 'capital gains‘ u/s 45 (Texspin Engg 263 ITR 345 (Bom) distinguished). If the assets and liabilities of the company are vested in the LLP at 'book values‘ (cost), there is in fact no capital gain. The argument that u/s 58(4) of the LLP Act, the LLP is entitled to carry forward the accumulated losses & unabsorbed depreciation of the company, notwithstanding non-compliance with s. 47(xiiib) is not acceptable
ACIT vs. Celerity Power LLP
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16198 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 47(xiiib), 47A(4), 58(4)
-
S. 148/ 151: If the AO issues the notice for reopening the assessment before obtaining the sanction of the CIT, the reopening is void ab initio. The fact that the sanction was given just one day after the issue of notice makes no difference
ITO vs. Ashok Jain
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16197 (ITAT-SURAT) · Sections 148, 151
-
S. 254(1)/ Rule 34(5)(c): An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing
Kaushik N. Tanna vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16182 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(1)
-
Bogus expenditure: A statement recorded u/s 133A under fear/ coercion cannot be relied upon by the AO if it is not corroborated by documentary evidence. The assessee is entitled to retract such statement. The AO is bound to give the assessee an opportunity to controvert evidence and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. A failure in providing the same can result in the order being a nullity (All judgements considered)
Concept Communication Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16169 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 133A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.