-
ITAT - The addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in purchase transactions (purchase of material in the grey market ) to factorize for profit earned against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases.
DHIRAJ BABULAL JAIN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-19 (1) (4), MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16084 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68044&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The date of final occupation of the new residential property under consideration shall be taken as the date of acquisition of the same by the assessee for the purpose of determining her eligibility towards claim of deduction under Sec. 54.
SMT. RANJANA R. DESHMUKH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICE, ASHAR I.T. PARK
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16083 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68050&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - For addition u/s 68, the satisfaction of the officer no doubt has to be based on the material so placed by the parties, which in the instant case is there. Formation of opinion has to be after accounting for all the factors and that too on objective consideration.
M/S J.M.J. ESSENTIAL OIL COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16082 (HC-HP) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38)/68 Bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks: It cannot be inferred that the assessee has manipulated the share price merely because it moved up sharply. The AO has to produce material/evidence to show that the assessee/ brokers did price rigging/manipulation of shares. The AO must also show that the relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement, bank account etc to prove the genuineness of the transactions are false or fictitious or bogus (All judgements considered)
Arun Kumar vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16081 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 10(38), 68
-
S. 147 Reopening of s. 143(1) intimation: The submission of the Dept that in view of Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC), the AO can reopen the assessment for "whatever reason" is preposterous. The AO cannot reopen on the basis of info received from DIT (Investigation) that a particular entity has entered into suspicious transactions without linking it to the assessee having indulged in activity which could give rise to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Such reopening amounts to a fishing inquiry. The AO has to apply his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.) and cannot act on on borrowed satisfaction
PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16080 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 143(1), 147
-
ITAT - IPL sponsorship fees not allowable as assessee has not derived benefit of advertisement by way of displaying company logo.
M/s. GMR Projects P. Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16079 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Period of holding of ESOPs in the hands of employees to be reckoned in case of bought back by employer from the date of grant of ESOPs.
N R Ravikrishnan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16078 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - In absence of building plan approval, no exemption available u/s 54 on advance given for flat.
Jagdish Wadhwani Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16077 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 54
-
ITAT - In the absence of evidence, sale of ‘penny stocks’ cannot result in LTCG exemption denial.
Vandana Sankhala Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16076 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - Salary is taxable only on accrual basis and it would accrue in USA as services were rendered in USA. Furnishing of TRC is applicable only when DTAA benefit is claimed.
Smt. Maya C Nair Vs ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16075 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
HC - A single solitary sale transaction of agricultural land would not result in adventure in nature of trade, but is chargeable under capital gains.
JOHN POOMKUDY Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16074 (HC-KERALA)
-
S. 2(47) Transfer for Capital Gains: The fact that an agreement for sale of property is registered does not make it a conveyance. The sale or transfer is not complete on the date of the execution of the agreement if there are obligations to be fulfilled by both parties
PCIT vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16073 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(47)
-
Interpretation of statutes: Effect of repeal of a statute u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act on pending proceedings explained in the context of the Gold Control Act and in view of law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713 etc
Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16072 (SC)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty/ 40(a)(i): Law explained on whether payment of web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (AWS) constitutes "royalty" under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) read with the India USA DTAA and whether there is any obligation to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195
EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16071 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 9(1)(vi), 40(a)(i)
-
ITAT - RPM is the most appropriate method in respect of distribution activities undertaken by the assessee under the international transaction of `Import of finished goods’.
FRESENIUS KABI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), PUNE., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), PUNE.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16069 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68007&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The activities of (1) making of certified seeds; (2) undertaking other processing activities and finally (3) trading of the said certified seeds are agricultural activity.
ITO, WARD-1 (2), /AURANGABAD, ACIT, CIRCLE-1/ AURANGABAD, DCIT, CIRCLE-1/ AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S. NATH BIO GENES (I) LTD.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16068 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68009&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - ITAT allowed registration u/s 12AA without considering the observation of the CIT and through non-speaking order which is not valid.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S TARA RIPU DAMANPAL TRUST, KURUKSHETRA
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16067 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74526&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The doctrine of merger would have no application as the subsequent order was held to be unsustainable in law. The said doctrine would apply only in a situation where the subsequent reassessment order has been held to be valid in law. where the reassessment order was annulled, the original assessment order would automatically get restored.
M/S THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16066 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74527&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Gains arising of n liquidation of stock under ESOP is taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘perquisite’.
Dr.Muthian Sivathanu Vs The ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16065 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 195 for reimbursement made to US company for seconding employees in India as it is not FTS.
AT & T Communication Services (India) P. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16064 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.