-
Interest from surplus fund taxable as income from other sources
M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9911 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Sec. 172 No TDS on payment to non–resident shipping companies
CIT. vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9910 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 172
-
AO duty bound to follow direction of appellate authorities
DCIT. vs. M/s. ACC Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9909 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
New appeal filing monetary limit applies to pending appeals also
ITO. vs. Smt. Sudha Brijratan Damani
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9908 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
WIP Valuation on receipt basis forbidden in mercantile accounting
The ACIT. vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9907 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Special provisions u/s 50 override Sec 55(2)(ab). WDV of BSE membership card would be regarded as COA.
Twin Earth Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9906 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 55(2)(ab)
-
ITAT - Assessee’s false claim supported by CA's opinion cannot absolve assessee from Sec 271(1)(c) penalty.
DCIT. Vs. Madura Micro Finance Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9905 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 80IB(10) Deduction allowed on additional business income declared post search
Madhav Corporation vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 80IB(10)
-
Non TDS deduction disallowance not sustainable if payee discharges his tax liability
Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
S. 80IC: 100% deduction allowed on every substantial expansion
M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9902 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 80IC
-
Penalty u/s 271AAA not tenable where no search conducted
DCIT. vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9901 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 271AAA
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 195 on commission payments made to UK/UAE companies under ‘Exclusive procurement agreement’.
Cochin International Airport Ltd. vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9900 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Transfer Pricing: Companies with large turnover like Infosys & Wipro are not comparable to companies with smaller turnover and should be excluded from the list of comparables
CIT vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9899 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 54EC: The period of "6 months" available for making investment means 6 calendar months & not 180 days. Payment by cheque dates back to date of presentation & not date of encashment
Neela S. Karyakarte vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9898 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54EC
-
There is a distinction betwen "setting up" and "commencement" of a business. A business is "set up" and expenditure is deductible even if assessee has no customers and no income
Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are "compensatory" in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law
Mangal Keshav Securities Limited vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9896 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37(1)
-
Argument that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee's income is deductible u/s 10A/ 10B is not acceptable. Contrary view in TCS cannot be followed as it is obiter dicta & contrary to law laid down in Aztech Software 107 ITD 141 (SB)
Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9895 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 10A, 10B
-
S. 2(22)(d)/ 46A: A buyback of shares u/s 77A of the Companies Act is not a reduction of capital u/s 100 - 104 of that Act. A buyback cannot be regarded as a "colourable transaction" and cannot be assessed as "deemed dividend" u/s 2(22)(d). The capital gains on buy-back are exempt under the India-Mauritius DTAA
Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9894 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(22)(d), 46A, 77A
-
HC - Whether agreement between assessee and the doctors was a 'contract for service' or a 'contract of service' explained.
Suresh Kumar Hooda v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9893 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=62647&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Time taken by Commissioner to pass order u/s 142(2A) would stand excluded while computing period of limitation.to complete assessment.
U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9889 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=62284&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.