|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 129641 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.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1024 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - No notice issued u/s 148 - alternate remedy - as per revenue that the notice was dispatched to the appellant - writ petitioner from Teynampet Post Office through speed post and also produced the proof before the learned Single Judge - HELD THAT:- Learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the said writ petition, as the appellant has got an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerned. The Income Tax Act, 1961, being a physical Statute, has provided for hierarchy of remedies under that and there is no justification for the assessee to bypass such an appellate remedy. The point canvassed before us as well as before the learned Single Judge is not a pure question of law, but a pure question of fact with the limits of law involved in it. ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1023 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Withholding of the refund u/s 241A - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and in view of the guidelines in Mapel Logistics [2019 (11) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as, the directions contained in the said order dated 03.03.2020 rendered by the Coordinate Bench [2020 (3) TMI 1243 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we allow the present petition and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and further permitting them to place on record the additional affidavit dated 01.06.2020, filed before this Court, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1022 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Whether no exempt income received by assessee? - non recording of satisfaction - HELD THAT:- To apply the provisions of Section 14A AO should have recorded a finding as to how Sub-Section (1) of Section 14A would stand attracted. In the absence of any such finding, the disallowance made was not justifiable. AO straightaway proceeded to the second limb of Section 14(2) which is impermissible. The Tribunal rightly took note of the decision in the case of Redington India Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D cannot be made applicable in vacuum i.e in the absence of exempt income. Therefore, we find that the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuatio....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1021 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib) - determining the share value of the premium - Method of valuation of shares - variation in value of shares to the extent of ten times between value adopted by the assessee company as against its actual value of underlying assets - assessee has adopted a method prescribed by the Income Tax Act, without considering the fact that the value of shares adopted by the assessee (under discounted case flow method) does not reflect the true market value of the shares on that date - assessee adopted the DCF method as available under Rule 11UA of the Rules for arriving at the value of the shares allotted and the share premium received - ao adopted the NAV method and re-valued the land owned by the assessee company for the purpose of determining the share value of the premium thereof - HELD THAT:- Noting that....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1020 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - whether case is covered by exceptions provided under clause (10)(c) of Circular No.3 of 2018 wherein it has been clearly stated that the cases involving revenue audit objection which had been accepted by the department are to be disposed off on merits? - deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The reason being that the assessee had omitted to adjust the business loss and unobserved depreciation of the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 and he had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 10A(2)(ii) and (iii) - assessee vide letter dated 04.11.2015 stated that the return originally filed under Section 139 of the Act may be treated as a return filed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148. The assessee after obtaining reasons for reopening had objected to the same, which was rejected by....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1019 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entitlement for deduction u/s.10A - when the new STP unit was not in existence and no activities are carried out from the STP unit - assessee is a Design Engineering Company - question of law involving in the case - HELD THAT:- Newly established undertaking is an undertaking of the assessee independent of all the undertakings that he is already possessing. In the instant case, the assessee was engaged on site development of software program. The programs were delivered at the premises of the client at the work site in South Korea. The activities of the assessee finally culminated at the work site of the clients at South Korea and there was no need for full fledged infrastructure facilities in India. Thus, the industrial undertaking of the assessee was independent of all the undertakings which it was already possessing. Therefore, the asse....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1018 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Allowing set off of losses of amalgamating company against the profits of assessee amalgamated company - HELD THAT:- In order to claim benefit of set off, of accumulated loss, the amalgamated company has to satisfy the conditions laid down in 71A(2)(a)(b) and (c). It is pertinent to note that Sub-Section (2) starts with a non obstante clause. In other words, it shall have effect notwithstanding other provisions of the Act. Thus, the compliance with the conditions prescribed in Section 71A(2) of the Act is mandatory. Tribunal has not adverted to the aforesaid aspect of the issue and has not satisfied itself whether the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in Section 71A(2) of the Act is sine qua non, to enable the assessee to claim the benefit of the set off under Section 71A of the Act. Since, the aforesaid aspect requires ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening beyond the period of four years - differences between charges received as per TDS Certificate and charges offered in the P&L A/c - whether mere production of records and account books before the Assessing Officer would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of 'Disclosure' as mentioned under 1st proviso to Section 147 ? - HELD THAT:- We find none to be available on record as is evident from the AO dated 30.11.2016, wherein the AO himself states that after the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on perusal of the records, it was seen from the P&L A/c that there is differences between charges received as per TDS Certificate and charges offered in the P&L A/c. When the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, this aspect, was noted by the Assess....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1016 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - whether the business loss claimed by the assessee can be treated as a Speculative Loss - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Private Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] fully supports the case of the assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to a conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment, reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. As already pointed out the finding rendered by the AO stating that the expression 'or' occurring in between Clause (a) to (d) of Section 43(5) should be read as 'and' as no such interpretation coul....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1015 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty levied u/s. 271(1) ( c) r.w.s. 274 - non-validity of penalty notice - Defective notice - HELD THAT:- Reading of the penalty notice, we note that the AO has not stricken out the irrelevant portion of the fault/charge which would have spelt out the specific fault/charge against the assessee as per section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Since the proposed notice itself is defective, all subsequent proceedings are bad in law and the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled. SEE M/S SSA’S EMERALD MEADOWS [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] AND M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1014 - ITAT BANGALORE
Exemption u/s 54F - Denial of exemption as appellant received multiple number of flats - transfer of 60% of land for builders against cost of construction of flats for 40% share - assessee and co-owners of the property had entered into a joint development agreement - Assessee submitted capital gains is not assessable in the year of entering into joint development agreement but only when the flats are received by the assessee as per the joint development agreement - HELD THAT:- All the flats were situated in a residential building and the four residential flats constitute “a residential house”. Accordingly, view confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in SMT. KG. RUKMINIAMMA [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. As decided in SHRI. B.J. BADRINATH [2018 (11) TMI 1168 - ITAT BANGALORE] ratio of the judgement of the Hon&rsq....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1013 - ITAT PUNE
Revision u/s 263 - treating the original assessment made u/s. 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue - assessee not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P2(d) - assessee has made certain investment in various banks and earned interest income on fixed deposit and dividend income and has not offered the said amount for taxation under the head “Income from other sources” and he held interest and dividend income earned is other income not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P2(d) - As per assessee every detail regarding the claim under Chapter VI has been provided to the AO and after examination of which the AO allowed the claim of assessee - HELD THAT:- Record furnished before us regarding the assessment proceedings clearly shows the assessee made no specific claim u/s. 80P2(d) of the Act before the AO nor in the retur....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1012 - ITAT KOLKATA
Losses eligible to be carried forwarded and consequently for set off in subsequent years - Business or speculation loss - claimed on commodity and derivatives and share derivatives as speculation loss - HELD THAT:- Assessee’s activity/loss is covered in currency and futures and options, which have been carried out/claimed as per proviso/clause (d) to section 43(5) of the Act read with Explanation 1 thereto and the said Notification No. 2/2006 [ so 89( E ), dated 25-1-2006. AO erred in assessing/adding all the losses, which the assessee claimed on commodity and derivatives and share derivatives as speculation loss. Since the assessee’s case is covered in Explanation 1 to section 43(5)(d) of the Act and assessee’s transaction was an eligible transaction, it cannot be termed as ‘speculative transaction’. Since t....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1011 - ITAT JAIPUR
Addition u/s 43CA - differential amount over and above the declared sale consideration - determination of Fair market value of commercial plot - determination of Fair market value of commercial plot - HELD THAT:- Assessee didn’t raise any objections before the DVO where he shared the preliminary estimate with the assessee for reasons best known to it and has raised its objections for the first time before the AO on receipt of the DVO report and the secondly, the AO has proceeded to follow the report the DVO. We therefore donot find any infirmity in the action of the DVO as the assessee failed to raise any objections before him. We also donot find any infirmity in the action of the AO in following the report of the DVO. Once the AO has referred the matter to the DVO for his expert opinion and the latter has submitted his report, the ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1010 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of the assessment order itself - Order barred by limitation and liable to be quashed - HELD THAT:- We find that an identical challenge was dismissed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Religare Capital Markets Ltd [2019 (10) TMI 992 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it has been held that final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act would not be covered under the provisions of section 153 of the Act. Respectfully following the findings of the coordinate bench, this ground is dismissed. TP Adjustments - international transactions relating to receipt of Management and consultancy services received towards Recovery of costs for SAP maintenance - HELD THAT:- Revenue authorities cannot judge the rendition of services by applying benefit test as laid down in the case of EKL Appliances [2012 (4) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT]....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1009 - ITAT GUWAHATI
Addition on the basis of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report - criminal conspiracy - Assessee being govt officer (treasury officer) - allegation of dishonestly caused withdrawal from the public exchequer against a Letter of Credit (LOC) - AO considering the charge sheet filed by CBI, was of the opinion that assessee was involved in the LOC scam and the assessee might have received pecuniary benefit i.e. a share of the scam - HELD THAT:- Assessee was not even made an accused by the CBI while submitting the offence/charge under sec. 173 of the Cr. P. C. and was not convicted also by the Special Judge, CBI and also taking note of the corroborative evidence which is the certificate issued by the Special Judge, CBI (supra) dated 07.07.2015 showing the assessee was not proceeded against by CBI or Special Court in the case, therefore, t....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1008 - ITAT DELHI
Best judgment u/s 144 - withdrawal of additional grounds of appeal - proof of service of notice issued u/s 143(2) - non-production of assessment records - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the AO has passed the assessment order u/s. 144 and the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order exparte. As per record, the present appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 07.12.2018 and adjourned many-times. On 27.11.2019 the Bench has directed the Departmental Representative to produce the records of assessment, but the Department did not produce the same. On 15.06.2020, Ld. DR also sought time to file the proof of service of notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act and case was adjourned for 30.07.2020. But again on 30.07.2020 DR did not produce the assessment records to prove the service of notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act and the case....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1007 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessment u/s 153A - addition of cash found during the course of search - unexplained advances - as contented Addition was made simply on the basis of disclosure of such income before the settlement commission which was done to meet the compliance of the provisions of Section 245C(1) - HELD THAT:- From the record we found that during the course of search, the assessee has surrendered ₹ 15,89,65,200/-. Yearwise breakup of the income surrendered as given at para 3 of this order hereinabove, we found that in the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10, the A.O. had made addition of ₹ 1.50 lacs and ₹ 2.00 lacs respectively on account of advances surrendered by the assessee. We also found that the detailed finding has been given by the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) with regard to amount found to have been advanced by the assessee, accordingly, w....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 977 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) - to be assessed in the hands of the share holder or in the hands of the firm - share holder of the company had substantial interest in the firm - HELD THAT:- Section 2(22)(e) provision would stand attracted when a payment is made by a company, in which public are not substantial interested by way of advance or loan to a share holder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of the shares. On facts, it is clear that the payment has been made to the assessee, a partnership firm. The partnership firm is not a share holder in the company. If such is the factual position, the decision in the case of National Travel Services relied on by the revenue cannot be applied, nor the case of Gopal and Sons, as they are factually distinguishable. The records placed before the assessing officer clearly shows the nature of....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 976 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Whether provision of section u/s.40(a)(ia) cover only amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and not amounts which are payable at any time during the relevant previous year? - HELD THAT:- Tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.
........
|
