-
Reimbursement cannot be treated as revenue receipts.
ASG Overseas Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29473 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 153A
-
There would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.
IKEA Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29472 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
CENVAT credit written off due to merger of manufacturing unit with another company was allowable as a deduction, since the benefit of CENVAT credit not availed of against the excise duty payable cannot be utilised by the assessee.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29471 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Non-seeking of permission for conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny in terms of para 4 of the CBDT instruction No. 7/2014, does not per se render the assessment order, erroneous.
Binod Kumar Mahato Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29470 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 263
-
CIT(A) ought to have confronted the assessee with the procedural shortcomings noticed prior to passing the order.
Gurdeep Singh Mangat Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29469 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Until and unless it is determined that the unaccounted transactions unearthed during search were liable for payment of tax, penalty or interest, no prosecution could be launched on the ground of attempt to evade such tax, penalty or interest.
D K Shivakumar Vs ASSISTANT/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29468 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Recourse to Sec 144 is not applicable in the present case since books of accounts though maintained by the assessee but not produced, thus, all expenses claimed by the assessee should be added back as income.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd Vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29467 (SC)
-
Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29466 (SC)
-
The extent of expenditure on advertising does not decide as to whether the expenditure incurred is of a revenue nature or of a capital nature nothing on record to show that a capital asset was created.
Miele India Pvt. Ltd Vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29465 (HC-DELHI)
-
RBI Circulars, or even a CBDT Circular issued in general, could not be relied on for deciding whether an asset is a trading asset or an investment asset.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29464 (SC)
-
Revenue called for specific information, referred the case to TPO and since TPO did not make any adjustment to the value of transaction, the same was accepted by AO.
Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd Vs PCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29463 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The conditions imposed in all the earlier stay orders shall remain intact. Both the parties shall make endeavour for early disposal of quantum appeal.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29462 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee directed the landowner to pay the amount due on surrender of tenancy rights to the builder and hence does not result in exchange of assets. Therefore, depreciation on the said property is allowed.
Areva T & D India Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29461 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 28
-
The addition has been confirmed in the absence of evidence from the assessee but this is not a case which would warrant levy of penalty either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29460 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Where the entire tax liability was paid to the Government, and there was no loss to the exchequer, allowing the case to continue after a lapse of 11 years would be abuse of process of court.
Dharampal R.Pandia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29459 (HC-MADRAS)
-
In the guise of consistency, it can never be held that shares are intangible asset on which depreciation can be allowed u/s 32(1)(ii).
Sanjana Cryogenics Storages Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29458 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Language in Secs. 194C/J/H/I mandates deduction of tax at source by a person who makes the payment.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29451 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Since the dividend income would be exempt in the hands of the assessee in terms of Sec. 10(34) r.w.s. 115-O, there would not be any requirement to file Income Tax Return for the assessee.
Liston Investment Ltd Vs ITO-12(3)(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(34)
-
Since the quantum of interest charged under Section 234-D of the Income Tax Act in the present case is lesser than Rs.50,00,000/- as stated in the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tax Case Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
S.Duraipandi & S.Thalavaipandian Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29449 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Culpable mental state presumed u/s 278E would come into play only in a prosecution for any offence, but such presumption can be applied only when basic ingredient for constituting an offence is established.
Forzza Projects Private Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29448 (HC-KERALA) · Section 276C(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.