|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 135557 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (5) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of the application filed u/s 245(C) - consequential order passed by the Settlement Commission - maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the order passed by the Settlement Commission - As contended that in the eventuality of no pendency of case during the relevant assessment year, the application under Section 245(C) of the Act is not maintainable before the Settlement Commission - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the power of the Settlement Commission is well enumerated under Section 245C and 245D of the Act. The manner in which settlement is to be arrived is also contemplated under the Act. Certain preconditions are also stipulated. Thus, the Settlement Commission cannot enter into the venture of assessment, which is the power of an Assessing Officer under Section 153A. Therefore....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Claim of deduction under Section 80-IA - assessee is eligible only for 30% pay of the deduction claim and remaining 70% is to be taxed - HELD THAT:- As there is a definite 'reason to believe' that the deduction of ₹ 61,10,78,973/- is excess deduction to the tune of income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment. When it is categorically stated that on account of certain informations provided by the assessee, a wrong assessment has been made and the excess deduction was made, so as to cause loss to the Revenue, then it is to be construed that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts. Facts regarding the deduction claim u/s 80-IA, all would have stated by the assessee in the return of income. However, during the scrutiny and while passing that the final order of assess....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 324 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus LTCG - Assessee earned long term capital gain on shares and claimed it as ‘exempt income’ under Section 10(38) - whether the revenue is justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration? - HELD THAT:- At the stage of issuing the notice, the court cannot investigate into adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons. When no scrutiny assessment made under section 143(1) of the Act, the requirement for reopening is only reason to believe. Considering the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has caused of justification that, the alleged transaction of penny stock, claiming amount of long term capital gain has escaped assessment - the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” in Section 147, would means cause or justification. If the as....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 323 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A - dividend amount received - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position that disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year as per case law Cheminvest Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Chettinad Logistics Private Limited [2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Corrteck Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D to ₹ 4,99,674/- in AY 2013-14 and ₹ 4,28,292 in AY 2014-15.
- 2021 (5) TMI 320 - ITAT SURAT
Capital gain on sale of land - Nature of land - capital asset u/s 2(14) or agricultural land - whether land is used solely for agricultural purposes? - HELD THAT:- We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold agricultural land bearing R. S. No. 12/1, B 17/1 located at village Nava Gam. Tal. Kamrej. Dist. Surat during the year under assessment, for sale consideration of ₹ 4,41,00,000/-. The population of village Navagam is less than 10,000 therefore, one of the conditions of section 2(14) of the Act, has failed, and hence such land is not a Capital Asset, consequently capital gains provisions are not attracted. Based on the other conditions, as mentioned by the ld Counsel in his arguments, the said land is an agricultural land. The assessee, right from the beginning,....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 304 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital receipt chargeable to tax u/s.45 - claim of exemption u/s.10(2A) - amount received by the assessee partner from the partnership firm - amount received by partner on retirement from a firm - HELD THAT:- Similar ground of appeal was raised in the case of co-partner of the said firm PLA, M/s Rahas Investments Private Limited (now merged with the assessee i.e Lupin Investments Private Limited) [2020 (2) TMI 564 - ITAT MUMBAI] there cannot be any levy of capital gains or any levy in the nature of income within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act in the hands of the assessee. There was no transfer of relinquishment of rights in favour of the continuing partners. We find that in the instant case the firm i.e. Pranik Landmark Associates had only paid the amounts lying to the credit of the partner i.e. the assessee and had n....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 303 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unsecured loans u/s 68 - AO observed that the assessee had shown unsecured loans from various parties in its balance sheet - CIT-A deleted the addition and directing the ld AO to allow interest paid on such unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- Once the assessee has furnished the complete details about the loan creditors together with their latest addresses as available with it and affidavits from directors duly notarised including details of loan repayments made to those companies and confirmations from them for the loans advanced to the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee u/s 68 of the Act stands duly discharged and no addition could be made in its hands merely on because the lenders fail to appear before the ld AO or the assessee failing to produce them before the ld AO. See M/S. ORCHID INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [2017 (7) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 302 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification u/s 254 - Transfer pricing adjustment on account of comfort guarantee - HELD THAT:- We hold that this Tribunal had duly adjudicated the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue which was enclosed alongwith Form No.36 and which was also duly signed by the ld. AO. In any case, the Tribunal is expected to adjudicate the grounds raised before it by the ld. AO that has been duly done in the instant case. Hence, we hold that this is not a fit case warranting any rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act, hence, the grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application are dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 301 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - bad debts written off - assessee had debited a sum against the head sundry balances written off - assessee nowhere explained the transaction essential during the course of business - assessee also received the loan - HELD THAT:- As the assessee failed to prove this fact that the loan was given in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending carried out by the assessee. Out of the amount of ₹ 2,31,02,343/-, ₹ 36,35,000/- was advanced to employees which undoubtedly would be in the ordinary course of business of the assessee. The assessee was not in the business of banking or money lending. The condition in view of the provisions u/s 36(2)(i) of the Act has not been satisfied. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. No material of any kind has been produced to which it can be assumed that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable. We dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
- 2021 (5) TMI 300 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - interest received from co-operative bank - assessee is a Co-Operative Housing Society deriving income from interest from Saving Bank Account and interest on fixed deposits - Whether Scheduled Co- operative banks are at par with commercial banks and therefore interest earned there from is not covered by the concept of mutuality and it not allowable for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)? - CIT(A) has held that the interest income from the deposit with the Co-operative Bank is liable to be exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has considered the number of decisions such as Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], PCIT Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], PCIT Vs Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017 (7) TMI 1049 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], Stat....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 299 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricting the addition to the extent of 12.5% - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and on the basis of the decision in case of Ratnagiri Steels [2017 (4) TMI 402 - ITAT MUMBAI]. The CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% on the basis of the gross profit (G.P.) of the Assessee under year consideration shown in the regular books of accounts. Thus finding of the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has voluntarily disallowed the expenses to earn the exempt income - HELD THAT:-....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 298 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption on dividend income u/s 10(34) - computing the income of insurance company - CIT-A allowed exemption considering the fetters prescribed in Section 44 - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2020 (11) TMI 601 - ITAT MUMBAI] CIT(A) has relied upon host of binding decisions to arrive at the conclusion that exemption u/s 10(34) with respect to dividend income would be available to the assessee and further, the provisions of Sec. 14A would not apply to insurance company. Thus Exemption u/s 10(34) could not be denied to the assessee - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of negative reserves - CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2020 (11) TMI 601 - ITAT MUMBAI] Assessee’s income was to be computed as per Sec. 44 of the Act and the assessee would be required to take Actuarial va....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 297 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricting the suppressed profit to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made from the bogus entities - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court Nikunj Eximp [2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Balaji Textile [1993 (8) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-B] and Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] In the instant case, sale is not doubted, therefore, the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the total bogus purchase . The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 296 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Bogus purchases - As onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing Officer and the assessee failed to discharge his onus - CIT-A deleted the penalty - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of decision in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal [2013 (6) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s. Manohar Manak Alloys P. Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1698 - ITAT MUMBAI] and M/s. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (7) TMI 1363 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Simit P. Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles [2000 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was added on estimation basis. Taking into account all the fact....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 295 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14Ar.w.r.8D - Assessee had suo moto made the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the exempt income of the assessee was of ₹ 6,300/-. The assessee has suo-moto disallowed the expenses to earn the exempt income in sum of ₹ 2,03,136/-. There are number of decisions of the higher authorities in which it has been specified that the expenses to earn the exempt income should not be more than exempt income. In the present case assessee disallowed the expenses to earn the exempt income to the tune of ₹ 2,03,136/- suo-moto which is more than the exempt income. We also find in support of the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT . [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] in which it is specifically held that the disallowance could not be exceed more than the exemp....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 294 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 69 - Transfer pricing adjustments - extending loan facility to Tata Tea UK as part of consortium/syndicate - letter written by one of the employee indicating that the assessee has extended loan of GBP 37.50 million as per part of syndicate and the participation/commitment fee of GBP 1,50,000 has been received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Apart from the said letters, there is no other material on record to corroborate that the assessee in any manner participated in extending loan facility to Tata Tea UK as part of consortium/syndicate. The findings of the TPO and the Assessing Officer in draft assessment order that the assessee has advanced loans from undisclosed sources is merely based on surmises and conjunctures. It is a well settled legal proposition that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of evidence. Except ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 293 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - assessee group was subjected to search action as triggered on the basis of pre-search enquiries conducted by the department that the assessee received accommodation entries from various concerns being run /operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain Group and Shri Mukesh Choksi Group - HELD THAT:- The key person of the assessee agreed to offer the said amount in various years to tax. However, the said statement was retracted immediately upon receipt of copies of statement from the department - Upon filing of retraction, another statement on oath u/s 131 has been recorded by Ld. AO from Shri Kishore P. Agarwal on 27/01/2016 wherein it has been reiterated that earlier confessional statement was given under force and in a state of confusion. AO has termed the retraction made after approx. 18 months as mere afterthoug....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 290 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment u/s 153C - denial of natural justice - statement of Mr. Prasesh Arya, Chief General Manager of the JBM Group of companies, qua which search was being carried out under Section 132 of the Act, was not furnished - HELD THAT:- As perused the record, the petitioner has, according to us, at least at this stage, established a prima facie case in his favour concerning infraction of the principles of natural justice by the revenue. The record shows that the petitioner was served with only an extract of the statement made by Mr. Prasesh Arya. Mr. Sharma, in this behalf, when queried, submitted that the crucial part of the statement was furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance. Even if we assume that, the stand taken by Mr. Sharma is sustainable, what concerns us at this stage, is the absence of an....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DTVSV Act - declaration of the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas rejected - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the provisions and the scheme of the DTVSV Act, it appears that the submissions on behalf of the petitioner carry lot of weight and it is difficult to consider the authority under the DTVSV Act would be able to go into the merits/grounds or legality of the appeal filed by the declarant. The Petition is allowed. The rejection of declaration of the Petitioner is set aside. The declaration of petitioner be processed in accordance with the DTVSV Act and the rules thereunder.
- 2021 (5) TMI 286 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bogus LTCG - Penny stock purchases - Tribunal remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer wherein the onus has been shifted to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing Officer is to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relation of the assessee, if any with that of the promoters and role of inflating of prices, etc. - HELD THAT:- An identical issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] [2020 (12) TMI 740 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]and held Not only the Assessing Officer, but also the CIT(A) examined the modus operandi of the assessee and held that the shares were purchased through off market and not through Stock Exchange and that the selling rates were artificially hiked later on. The above findings have not been set aside by ....... + More
........
|
