HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU v. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2016 JANUARY 22, 2019 Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Adv., P.C. Tripathi and Amit Mathur for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The Revenue is in Appeal against the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”),… Read More »
The argument of the learned senior counsel for the assessee that contract was subsequently rescinded will not be of any help because the contract was rescinded only subsequent to the assessment year and what we are concerned for the purpose of the Act is the transactions which took place during the assessment year. HIGH COURT… Read More »
The date of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade shall be determined either on the basis of entry passed in the books of account of the assessee or the intention of the assessee to exploit the capital asset into stock in trade for its business purpose. In this case, undisputedly, the assessee has… Read More »
The obligation of the Assessee u/s.192 is only to make bonafide estimate of income of his employee under the head salaries. Such obligation cannot be tested on the parameters laid down on exercise of power by authorities under the Act exercising powers u/s.132 or u/s.147 of the Act. IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ Karnataka Power Transmission… Read More »
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1381 OF 2019 FEBRUARY 1, 2019 JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddv, J. – Leave granted. 2. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant, i.e., the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, aggrieved by the Order dated 18.09.2017… Read More »
loss incurred was in the transaction relating to and for acquisition of a capital asset. For some reason, the attempt made by the appellant-assessee to acquire land/plot as a capital asset did not fructify. Hence, the appellant-assessee had asked for refund of the amount, which was paid for acquisition of the capital asset. Forfeiture or… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Shrivardhan Mohta v. Union of India DEBANGSU BASAK, J. W.P. NO. 568 OF 2018 FEBRUARY 14, 2019 Mrs. Manju Agarwal and Bajrang Manot, Advs. for the Petitioner. Kaushik Chanda, Ld. A.S.G. D.K. Bhowmick, Mrs. Debjani Ray, Ms. Nabonita Karmakar and Yogesh Bhatt, Advs. for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that, the provisions of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and… Read More »
ITAT Ahmedabad DCIT Vs Shri Arvind N. Nopany Appeal Number : Income Tax (Search & Seizer) Appeal Nos. 128 & 129/Ahd/2016 Date of Judgement : 24/01/2019 Related Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10 These two instant appeals filed by the revenue are against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)… Read More »
The law is well settled that where two views are possible on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee should be followed. Moreover, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (supra) is in favour of the Assessee. Following the said decisions, we hold that the Assessee should be… Read More »
that assessee is carrying on the activities of medical relief for eradication and education of HIV AIDS patients the assessee is entitled to the registration u/s. 12 AA of the income tax act as there is no finding by the learned CIT – exemption that the activities of the assessee are not genuine. IN THE… Read More »
Held Hindu Undivided Family is not a legal entity under the common law. Therefore, it cannot hold any property / title over the immovable property. Hence, the registered sale deed for purchase of the property in question has to be in the individual name of the coparcener. In this case on our hand, the assessee… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vembu Vaidyanathan AKIL KURESHI AND M. S. SANKLECHA, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 1459 OF 2016 JANUARY 22, 2019 Sham Walve for the Appellant. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Counsel and Rahul Hakani for the Respondent. JUDGMENT P.C.- This appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We… Read More »
Held The Revenue’s contention is that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) talks about any immoveable property and thus even an agriculture land falls under the definition of an immoveable property and the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. On reading of provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b), we find that it refers to any immoveable property and… Read More »
PAN-Aadhaar Linkage mandatory for filing Income Tax Returns from AY 2019-20: SC S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).34292/2018 Date : 04-02-2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-07-2018 in WP(C)… Read More »
Held Kelvinator of India Ltd. It has held that, after April 1, 1989 the assessing officer invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 must have tangible material to come to the conclusion that, there was escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.… Read More »
No Deduction for Delayed Payment of employees contribution of EPF & ESI It is true that Section 43B was amended and consequently the deduction is to be allowed based only on the actual date of payment. But the facts of the present case is otherwise. The belated payment made by the assessee in this case… Read More »
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT, NEW DELHI T. Raja v. K. Visakh JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH, CHAIRMAN FPA/PBPT/30, 31, 53, 55, 59, 60, 63 (CHN) OF 2018 OCTOBER 31, 2018 Anirudh Bakhru and Sudhir Chandra, Advs. for the Appellant. Anish Dhingra, SPP for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By this Order, I propose to decide the above-mentioned seven appeals… Read More »
No TDS is required to be deducted by purchaser even if consideration of property exceeds Rs 50 lakh but every co-owner share is less than Rs 50 Lakh:- ITAT Income Tax Appellant Tribunal ( ITAT), Delhi in case of Vinod Soni Vs ITO ITA No 2736/Del/2015 has held that Each transferee is a separate income… Read More »
IN THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ Ajay Kumar Singhania v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 1650 (CHD) OF 2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17] OCTOBER 4, 2018 Navneet Sehgal, CA for the Appellant. Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr. DR for the Respondent. ORDER Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member – The… Read More »
The offence under Section 276 CC of IT Act deals with failure to comply with the obligation under Sections 139 (1) or 142(1) or 148 of IT Act. Disobedience of each said provision of law itself constitutes a distinct offence. The offence under Section 276 CC, prima facie, stood constituted upon failure on the part… Read More »
Income tax discourages payment of money in cash and beyond a specified limit. That is to encourage cheque transactions and banking operations. It is in these circumstances that the Assessing Officer found that out of the total consideration of Rs. 39,00,960/-, a substantial sum has been paid in cash even though banking facilities are available… Read More »
e are of the considered opinion that the withdrawal to the extent of the accumulated balance (viz., contributions plus interest) up to the retirement of the assessee’s i.e., 1/4/2002 of Rs.37,93,888/- is eligible for exemption u/s 10(12) of the Act . However in respect of the accrued interest of Rs. 44,07,195/-from 1/4/2002 to 11/4/2011 on the… Read More »
If that demand is under dispute and is subject to the appellate proceedings, then, the right of appeal vested in the petitioner/assessee by virtue of the Statute should not be rendered illusory and nugatory. That right can very well be defeated by such communication from the Revenue/Department as is impugned before us. That would mean… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2015 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. Sameer Dalal and Ms. Namrata Kasale for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. When this appeal was called out, Mr. Arvind Pinto, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of… Read More »
IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’ Gautam Jhunjhunwala v. Income Tax Officer Ward-25(4), Kolkata A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 1356 (KOL) OF 2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13] SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 P.R. Kothari, FCA for the Appellant. Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR for the Respondent. ORDER A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member – This appeal… Read More »
The lease line charges were paid by the assessee to the internet service provider for faster internet access on dedicated lease line and as such the said payment had been made for use of telecommunication services / connectivity for transmission of voice / data facility provided by the vendors and not for use of any… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association v. Union of India MOHAMMAD RAFIQ AND GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ. D.B. CIVIL WRIT (P.I.L) PETITION NO. 21774 OF 2018 OCTOBER 1, 2018 Siddharth Ranka, M.I. Iqbal and Saurabh Harsh for the Petitioner. R.D. Rastogi and Chandra Shekhar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This public interest litigation has been filed by the Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association, Jaipur inter… Read More »
In case the interest is received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, then same is not taxable in the hands of the assessee and in case, the interest is received under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same is taxable in the hands of the assessee. IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH… Read More »
sub-sections 56(2)(v), 56(2)(vi) & 56(2)(vii) shall not be applicable if any sum is received from any relative ( as defined in explanation (e) to section 56). There is no mention about the occasion to be a necessary condition for receiving any sum from any relative. In the instant case, the alleged gifts of Rs.50,000/-,… Read More »
IN THE ITAT AGRA BENCH (SMC) Rajesh Kumar v. ACIT 1(1)(1), Agra A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 198 (AGRA) OF 2018 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15] JULY 16, 2018 Ajay Kumar Sharma, AR for the Appellant. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 against the CIT (A)’s action of… Read More »