-
S. 40(a)(i) TDS disallowance: A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) disallowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi)
CIT. Vs. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14329 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 40(a)(i)
-
S. 263: Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is "erroneous" under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" because Fringe Benefit Tax is not "tax" as defined in s. 2(43) and cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(v) or added back to "Book Profits" u/s 115JB
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14328 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 263
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The law in Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not mean as a matter of rule that in case where the High Court admits an appeal relating to quantum proceedings ipso facto i.e. without anything more, the penalty order gets vitiated. The question of entertaining an appeal from an order imposing / deleting penalty would have to be decided on a case to case basis. There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty can be levied if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law
Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14318 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 54: If agreement for purchase of new residential house is made and entire purchase price is paid within three years from the date of transfer of the old asset, exemption u/s 54 is available. It is not required that the house must be completed within 3 years. The requirement in s. 54(2) that the capital gains should be deposited in the CGAS scheme is merely an enabling provision. If the assessee shows during assessment proceedings that the capital gains have been reinvested in the new residential house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS
Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14305 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section. 54
-
Appointment of Tribunal Members under new rules: interim directions issued regarding the method for selection of Tribunal Members and their terms and period of appointment
Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14302 (SC)
-
S. 54: The expression “cost of the residential house so purchased” in s. 54 is not confined to the cost of civil construction but includes furniture and fixtures if they are an integral part of the purchase. The fact that the assessee did not make the claim is no reason to deny the claim if he is otherwise entitled to it (Scope of Srinivas R Desai 155 TTJ 743 (Ahd) expanded)
Rajat B Mehta vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14301 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 54
-
HC - No sec. 40(a)(i) disallowance in respect of amended 'royalty' definition vide Finance Act, 2012 by virtue of retrospective insertion of Explanation 6 to Sec.9(1)(vi),
NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14276 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 40(a)(i)
-
HC - Matter referred to larger bench on whether the interpretation of Sec. 147 read with Explanation (3) is restrictive.
Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14275 (HC-DELHI)
-
AAR - Employer not liable to deduct TDS on salaries paid in India to NR-employees deputed overseas to group companies.
Texas Instruments (ndia) Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14274 (AAR)
-
ITAT - Undertaking at Hyderabad should be treated as expansion of the existing unit at Pune, from where the employees were transferred, AO to allow deduction u/s 10A for the remaining period as eligible to the Pune unit.
Capgemini Technology Services India Limited Vs. The Dy. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14271 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 10A
-
Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest
All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14270 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 234A
-
ITAT - No disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) where AO has not brought any comparables from the market to make out that the current payment is excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b).
Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Khinvasara Investments Pvt. Ltd.) Versus ACIT, Circle-9 And ITO, Ward-10 (1) , Pune
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14265 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61584&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Provision of section 206AA will not have an overriding effect over the provisions of the 1961 Act and if the provision of DTAA are beneficial to the assessee they will override provisions of Section 206AA by virtue of provisions of Section 90(2).
ITO (IT) 1 (1) (2) , Mumbai Versus Atos Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14264 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61556&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Corpus-specific-voluntary contributions are not taxable in case of an unregistered Trust u/s. 12/12A/12AAA.
ITO (Exemptions) , Ward-2, Pune Versus Serum Institute of India Research Foundation
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14263 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 271B where there is no computation of profits and gains of the business or profession as part of the total income.
United Education Society, C/o NIMT College Versus JCIT, Ghaziabad
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14262 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61566&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No material to support that mother of Karta of assessee HUF, is member of his HUF, hence gift of equity shares received by the assessee is taxable u/s 56(2)(vii).
Subodh Gupta (HUF) , C/o. M/s. RRA Tax india Versus Pr. CIT-11, New Delhi
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14261 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61535&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.
Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Versus M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14260 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70904&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Entire law on whether the computation provisions of Rule 8D is retrospective explained in the light of established principles of interpretation of statutes read with verdicts in Vatika Townships 367 ITR 466 (SC), Gold Coin Health 304 ITR 308 (SC) and other verdicts
CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14259 (SC) · Section 14A
-
HC - Builder's agreement with respect to share in land and transfer of land under the impression that land itself has been converted into 'stock in trade' is nothing but a colourable transaction and it amounts to fraud.
Commissioner of Income Tax-II Aayakar Bhawan Lucknow Versus M/s The Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Pvt. Limited And Vice-Versa
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14257 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70897&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No penalty u/s 271AAA where sufficient compliance with the provision if tax is shown to have been paid before the assessment was completed.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-2 Versus M/s Swapna Enterprise
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14256 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70895&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.