-
ITAT - Principal amount of loan waived by the lender on account of one time settlement of loan not a revenue receipt.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (3) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Vibhadeep Investment and Trading Ltd. and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11315 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - DIT has no powers to cancel registration of a charitable institution on the ground that it is carrying on commercial activities which are in breach of the amended definition of “charitable purpose” in section 2(15).
M/s. Hyderabad Cricket Association Hyderabad Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11313 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51699&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where either the loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation is nil, then no deduction allowable for computing the book profit u/s 115JB.
M/s. Indian Furniture Products Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-2, Margao – Goa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11312 (ITAT-PANAJI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51650&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 69C Bogus purchases: The AO cannot treat purchases as bogus (accommodation entries) merely on the basis of information received from the sales-tax department and without conducting independent inquires especially when the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing bills for purchase of goods
DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11311 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C
-
S. 2(47)(v): Entire law on whether entering into a "joint development agreement" with the builder and handing over possession/ power of attorney amounts to a "transfer" and gives rise to capital gains explained. Chaturbuj Dwarkadas Kapadia 260 ITR 491(Bom) explained/ distinguished
ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11310 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(47)(v)
-
S. 158BC: Action of the Revenue in issuing s. 158BC notice despite the appraisal report clearly stating that no incriminating material was found is highly deplorable as it amounts to harassment of the taxpayer. The Officers cannot act on their whim and fancy. The Dept should adopt a SOP to provide adequate safeguards before issuing notices under Ch. XVIB. Chief CIT directed to pay costs to the assessee
Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11309 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 158BC
-
ITAT - Merely because the amount is outstanding since 2003, it cannot be inferred that the liability has ceased to exist and the assessee has obtained any benefit by way of remission or cessation of its trading liability. No addition u/s 41(1)(a).
M/s Shree Padmavati Marbles Pvt. Ltd. c/o Ajay Somani Versus The Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11307 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51350&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Even where part payment was made for the acquisition of asset, assessee is eligible for depreciation.
M/s V Hotels Ltd Versus DCIT- Rg -3 (3) , Mumbai and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11306 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51670&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee made surrender immediately after search and before issuance of any notice and had declared the surrendered income in the returns of income accepted by the AO, No penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
M/s. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-I, Faridabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11304 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51672&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194J on ‘settlement and custody’ fees paid to NSDL/CDSL as they cannot be considered as ‘technical services’.
M/s. Karvy Computershare Private Limited Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11303 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51676&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Jobbing activity done to guard against business loss could not be considered as a speculative transaction as per sec. 43(5) proviso (c).
The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri. Rajan C. Sheth
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11302 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66522&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - If a cause was found to be reasonable and for non-filing of return immediately in response to notice under Section 153A, such cause can also be construed as a reasonable cause, while considering as to whether penalty has to be levied under Section 271F.
S. Jayanthi Shri Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit-I, The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11301 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66523&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is neither criminal nor quasi-criminal but a civil liability and therefore a strict liability to which mens rea is not essential to decide the liability to pay penalty.
S L Shiva Raj vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11300 (HC-AP)
-
ITAT - Assessee cannot claim depreciation on assets acquired under amalgamation more than the depreciation allowable to amalgamating company.
United Breweries Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11286 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 32
-
ITAT - In terms of the developer agreement, the possession of the land was to be given to developer only upon fulfillment of certain conditions, therefore receipt of Rs. 10 cr. does not result into transfer u/s 2(47)(v).
ACIT Vs Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11285 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - No sec 244A interest for the period of delay which occurred in curing defects in TDS certificates.
State Bank of Travancore vs. CCIT and others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11284 (HC-KERALA)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be imposed if the AO does not specify whether the penalty is for "concealment of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars". Penalty cannot be imposed in respect of income surrendered by the assessee if the AO does not link the income to incriminating documents
M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11283 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 147: Non-supply by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment (even where the reopening is prior to GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC)) renders the reassessment order bad as being without jurisdiction
CIT vs. IDBI Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11282 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 37(1): While expenditure for purchase of a capital asset is capital expenditure, guarantee commission to acquire the asset on installment terms is revenue expenditure
Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11281 (HC-P&H) · Section 37(1)
-
S. 200A/234E: As the amendment to s. 200A has come into effect on 1.6.2015 and has prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee u/s 234E can be made for TDS deducted prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices u/s 200A for payment of fee u/s 234E is without authority of law
Fatheraj Singhvi vs. UOI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11280 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 200A, 234E
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.