-
HC - AO justified in exercising his powers u/s 148, as there was no opportunity to verify the transactions claimed to have made in those years. Therefore, it is not a case of change of opinion.
M/s. Alfa Investments Versus The Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13763 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70218&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Amounts received by assessee is nothing but loan / advance and assessee is camouflaging the same as a commercial transaction relating to sale of property in order to get over the provisions of Section 2(22)(e).
Shri Hemanth Kumar Bothra Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Bengaluru
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13762 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=59664&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee is duty bound u/s 68 to explain the source with identification, genuineness and credit worthiness of the capital contributor.
M/s Supraja’s Sandy Lane Bar & Restaurant Versus ACIT, Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13761 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=59652&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Unreasonableness would be in not providing an adequate opportunity to the petitioner and he cannot be blamed for the delay caused at the Departmental level. This is a fit case where CIT can exercise his powers under Section 220(2A).
Smt. E. Rukmani, legal heir of late Shri. R. Eswaramurthy Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13760 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70211&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Relief cannot be denied to the assessee solely on the ground that assessee had offered for disallowance.
DCIT, Circle 7 (1), New Delhi Versus Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13759 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Income from shipping is defined in Sec. 115VI and the incidental activity in Rule 11R, therefore no income other than the receipts from core activities related to shipping & incidental activities can be included under Tonnage Tax Scheme.
Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13758 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
ITAT - No Sec. 40(a)(i) disallowance for payment to a US resident for providing inspection and rework services as the same is not Fees for included services under India-US DTAA.
Delphi Automative Systems Vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13757 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 40(a)(i)
-
HC - Writ admitted - In grant of interim relief, allows taxpayer to file return either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting for the aadhaar number and/or enrollment ID. Two courts have given this type of order (Kerala and Madras HC)
Preeti Mohan
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13756 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - FMV of the property in the year of sale of property is to be considered.
Image Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13755 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Receipt of earnest money consequent to an Agreement for Sale is not a relevant factor for construing ‘year of transfer’.
Maniar Injectoplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13754 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - Merely including ‘Bank’ in co-operative society’s name cannot dis entitle Sec. 80P benefit especially when not even a single piece of evidence was produced to show that the appellant was in fact dealing with non-members..
The Eluru Cooperative House Mortgage Society Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13753 (HC-AP) · Section. 80P
-
ITAT - Assessee-company is liable to deduct TDS in respect of provisions reversed subsequently as the reversal was not in the beginning of the next accounting year, but major reversals were towards the end of the next accounting year.
Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13752 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Low Tax Effect Circular: The CBDT cannot issue any circular having retrospective operation. Consequently, instruction/circular issued on 9.2.2011 directing withdrawal of low tax effect appeals applies only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals. The fact that the CBDT itself vide Circular dated 10.12.2015 directed that the instruction to withdraw low tax effect appeals will apply retrospectively to pending appeals has no bearing
CIT. vs. Gemini Distilleries
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13751 (SC)
-
S. 44BB: Amounts received as “mobilisation fee” on account of provision of services and facilities in connection with the extraction etc. of mineral oil in India attracts s. 44BB and have to be assessed as business profits. S. 44BB has to be read in conjunction with ss. 5 and 9 of the Act. Ss. 5 and 9 cannot be read in isolation. The argument that the mobilisation fee is “reimbursement of expenses” and so not assessable as income is not acceptable because it is a fixed amount paid which may be less or more than the expenses incurred. Incurring of expenses, therefore, would be immaterial. Also, the contract was indivisible
Sedco Forex International Inc vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13750 (SC) · Section. 44BB
-
S. 10A/ 10B: Entire law on the concept of "derived from" the undertaking and "purposive interpretation" of statutes explained. The incidental activity of parking surplus funds with banks or advancing of staff loans by assessees covered u/s 10-A or 10-B is an integral part of their export business activity and a business decision taken in view of the commercial expediency. Such incidental income cannot be delinked from the profits and gains derived by the undertaking engaged from the export of specified goods and cannot be taxed separately u/s 56 of the Act
CIT. vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13749 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections. 10A, 10B
-
ITAT - Concessional rate of tax of 10% u/s 115E on long term capital gains earned on sale of bonus shares is available since bonus shares acquire character of original shares.
Shashi Parvatha Reddy Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13744 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 114E
-
ITAT - Even if the management charges was on account of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the holding company the provisions of Section 194J cannot be circumvented by modus operandi of payment routing through the holding company.
Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13743 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Payment made by Indian-company to its foreign-parent in respect of software licenses purchase is not in the nature of royalty to attract TDS u/s 195.
Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13742 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - Since amounts to be added to the book profit under clause (b) of Expl 1 to Sec. 115JB represents 'appropriation of profits' therefore, addition to book profit cannot be made towards revaluation reserve not created through P&L A/c.
The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Limited Vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13741 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c)/ 292BB: "concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" referred to in s. 271(1)(c) denote two different connotations. It is imperative for the AO to make the assessee aware in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as to which of the two limbs are being put-up against him. The failure to do so is fatal to the penalty proceedings. The argument that the assessee was made aware of the specific charge during the proceedings is of no avail. S. 292BB does not save the penalty proceedings from being declared void
Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13740 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 271(1)(c), 292BB
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.