-
HC - It would not be open for AO to subsequently hold that Assessee had failed to truly and fully disclose all material facts and reopen the assessment on the basis that he should have estimated PE income by adopting a different method.
BBC Worldwide Limited vs. ADIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10050 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Appeal dismissed in view of CBDT circular no. 21/2015 (Department's appeal before High Courts shall not be filed in cases where tax effect does not exceed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs)
CIT. Vs. Lakshmikutty Narayanan
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10049 (HC-KERALA)
-
ITAT - Though Tribunal in first round did not use the words ‘set-aside’ or ‘cancel’ , it had effectively asked AO to make fresh exercise of assessment determining the total income. Time-barred assessment quashed u/s 153(2A).
Sanjay Jaiswal Vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10048 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Advertising hoarding structures should be treated as ‘building’ eligible for depreciation @ 10%.
Asian Advertising vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion
Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10046 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
-
An addition on account of bogus purchases cannot be made only on the basis of information received from the MVAT department.
Imperial Imp & Exp vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10045 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.
Milestone Tradelinks P.Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10044 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Reopening u/s 147 without application of mind is not valid
Suresh M Bajaj vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10043 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 147
-
HC - Rejected revenue’s erroneous interpretation that even prima facie merits cannot be considered by him while exercising his powers of stay u/s 220(6).
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10042 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Strictures passed against high-handed and unfair approach of AO (IRS Officer) in refusing to give an acknowledgement of stay application. Chief CIT directed to ensure such behaviour is not repeated. Dept directed to nominate another AO to hear stay application
Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10041 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 220(6): Dept directed to redeposit moneys collected illegally by attachment of assessee’s bank account during pendency of stay application. A order passed on a stay application must give reasons for the refusal to stay the demand
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10040 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 220(6)
-
Deduction of section-10B, transferring pricing adjustment on account of ECB from parent company
Intergarden India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10039 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10B
-
S. 68: Law on when share application moneys and share premium from private companies can be treated as bogus and assessed as cash credits explained
ACIT vs. Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10038 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 68
-
S. 115JB: As the loss suffered on transfer of business was rightly debited to the P&L A/c as per AS 13, it cannot be added back to the Book Profits
CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10037 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 115JB
-
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Controversy whether in view of retrospective amendment to s. 195 to provide that s. 195 applies whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India, even commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable for TDS u/s 195 and has to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to be reconsidered by ITAT
Sesa Resources Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10036 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 195, 40(a)(ia)
-
ITAT - Assesse justified in not offering the amount to tax on the ground that income did not accrue as Enron had gone bankrupt.
Bechtel International Inc vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10035 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Cessation of temporary work doesn’t amount to retrenchment. Exemption u/s 10(10B) not available.
Ambika Jyoti Datta vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10034 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section. 10(10B)
-
ITAT - 100% stay granted as outstanding-demand adjustment against refund /TDS
Huertey Petrochem SA vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10033 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - FMV of land relevant for capital gains and not construction cost on transfer of land pursuant to a JDA.
ACIT. Vs. Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10032 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Amount received by Gavaskar from ESPN Star Sports for providing services as a presenter and commentator is available for deduction u/s .80RR.
Sunil Gavaskar vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10031 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 80RR
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.