-
S. 50C: The proviso to s. 50C inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that the stamp duty valuation of property on the date of execution of the agreement to sell should be adopted instead of the valuation on the date of execution of the sale deed is curative and intended to remove an undue hardship to the assessee and an apparent incongruity. It should accordingly be given retrospective effect from 1st April 2003, i.e. the date effective from which s. 50C was introduced
Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C
-
S. 37(1)/43(5): Loss suffered in foreign exchange transactions entered into for hedging business transactions cannot be disallowed as being “notional” or “speculative” in nature. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds is not good law as it lost sight of Badridas Gauridas 261 ITR 256 (Bom)
CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 37(1), 43(5)
-
ITAT - Amendment to Sec 50C should be treated as retrospective in nature and accordingly, stamp duty valuation as on ‘agreement to sell’ date and not sale deed execution date should be considered.
Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11270 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194-I on PSF and X-Raycharges paid by the assessee on behalf of its customer.
DCIT (OSD) TDS-1 (2) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Emirates And Vice-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11267 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50610&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee has reasonable cause for noncompliance with notice u/s 142 and as such the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) cannot be levied.
Shri J.S. Walia and Others Versus DCIT (Central) -I, Bhopal
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11266 (ITAT-INDORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51627&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Magnitude of transactions carried out by the assessee should not be very material in coming to the conclusion that income in question is income from business.
Shree Padmasagar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Kolkata
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11264 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Before AY 1988-89, capital contribution in the form of immovable properties, stocks and shares by a company to a partnership-firm was not taxable u/s 45.
Jamnalal Sons Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11263 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Presumptive charge of income u/s 44AF is not distinguishable from arriving at chargeable income u/s 29 in case of unexplained source of huge Cash Deposit in Bank Account.
Naresh Kumar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11262 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66475&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Amount received by a UK based event management company pursuant to contract with BCCI for providing assistance in organising IPL cricket tournament is taxable as FTS under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA.
International Management Group (UK) Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11259 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Writ Dismissed against CBDT order denying extension of time for complying with the requirements of Sec. 54F.
Shivinder Singh Brar, Karta HUF vs. CBDT and others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11257 (HC-P&H) · Section. 54F
-
ITAT - Merely deposit of the said amount in the accounts of the partners, do not make the assessee liable to pay the interest to its partners on its own money.
Shree Durga Marbles Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kishangarh
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11256 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51566&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Interest u/s.234C should be charged on Return of income filed in compliance to notice Sec. 148 of the Act as the chargeability provisions are not applicable only to the Return of income filed u/s.139(1).
Sree Meenakshi Reltors Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward II (3), Coimbatore
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11255 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51611&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - CIT u/s 263 (whre AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings) cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not a part of assessment proceedings.
Shri Nandkumar Bhalchandra Bhondve Versus The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 9, Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11254 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Premium paid to MMRDA for acquiring lease hold rights and additional FSI for the leased plot was not in the nature u/s 194I and is not liable for TDS.
The ACIT Central Circle -13, Mumbai Versus M/s. Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11253 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51613&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Assessee with the malafide intention, after a period of three years, changed the consideration which cannot be appreciated, therefore the consideration shown in the original sale deed has to be considered for determination of the capital gain (slump sale).
The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2 (1), Chennai Versus M/s Eagle Apparels LLP
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11252 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - As assessee has been able to prove the identity of the company in case of share capital and premium received but unable to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the parties, additions u/s 68 confirmed.
ACIT, Cir-5, Ahmedabad Versus Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd.,
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11251 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since delay in finalization of accounts was beyond the control of assessee (newly appointed Accountant took some time to pick up the threads of the work left in between by the outgoing incumbent), no penalty u/s 271B.
Prachin Group Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11250 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Interest on debentures, upfront fees and interest on deposits given to other corporations by a company, are not chargeable to tax under erstwhile Interest Tax Act, 1974.
CIT. vs. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corp.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11238 (SC)
-
ITAT - Disallowance on depreciation claimed on valuation of Government Securities “Held to Maturity” (HTM) category not justified.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon Versus Jalgaon Janta Sah. Bank Ltd. and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11237 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - AO is not empowered to charge the fees u/s 234E by way of intimation issued u/s 200A in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015.
Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune Versus DCIT, Ghaziabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11234 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51560&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.