Income Tax judiciary-2

University liable to Pay Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs The Joint Director(Gst Intelligence) (Madras High Court)

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs Joint Director (GST Intelligence) (Madras High Court) The University is renting the property to other institutions and collecting rent from them. Therefore, the second respondent was justified in raising demand for the said service. However, there is no justification in levying penalty. The assessee is...

Read More

Rule 8D is not retrospective & applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present year, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A by invoking provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since Rule 8D is not retrospective, the same is not applicable in the present assessment year and accordingly, we hold that the assessing […]...

Read More

Purchases not become Bogus merely for non-production of Parties

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)  As per accounting standards AS-7, the purchases and working progress have to be reconciled along with architect report. The AO has not rejected the books of accounts and accepted the book profits while making the addition. The Assessing Officer’s observation that none of...

Read More

GAAR cannot be invoked merely for being a party to tax avoidance, ‘participation’ is pre-requisite: South Africa HC

ABSA Bank Limited Vs Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (High Court of South Africa)

ABSA Bank Limited Vs Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (High Court of South Africa) Introduction [1] The applicants, Absa Bank Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary Absa Towers (Pty) Ltd hereafter referred to, collectively, as Absa, seek to review two decisions of the respondent, the Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (SA...

Read More

HC dismisses Income Tax prosecution launched against D K Shivakumar

Income Tax Department Vs Sri D K Shivakumar (Karnataka High Court)

Income Tax Department Vs Sri D K Shivakumar (Karnataka High Court) The gist of the offence under section 276C(1) is the wilfull attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable or under reports of the income. What is made punishable is “attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest” and not the “actual […]...

Read More

Exempt income cannot be taxed merely for not mentioning in ITR ‘Schedule EI’

Goodwill Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Goodwill Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee, out of ignorance or inadvertence has omitted to mention the details of exempt income in the relevant ‘Schedule EI’. So, the ignorance of the assessee or inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee should not come in his way in claiming exemption, which is o...

Read More

Sale Consideration cannot be Determined merely on Form 26AS

Jaya Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Jaya Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Admittedly in this case, the CIT(A) determined the sale consideration on the basis of Form 26AS without seeing the actual sale deed entered by the assessee with concerned parties. In our opinion, sale consideration cannot be determined only on the basis of Form 26AS. The provisions of s.2(47)(v) can [&...

Read More

Expense cannot be disallowed merely for non-production of vouchers by employees

Hero Motocorp Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Hero Motocorp Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Regarding Ground No. 16 relating to disallowance of reimbursement of foreign travelling expenses to directors/employees amounting to 7.38 crores, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance was made on the ground of non-submission of evidence/proof of actual expenses incurred by employees. It was subm...

Read More

Section 271F penalty valid for not filing Return if Total Income before section 54 exemption exceeds maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax

Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Section 139(1)(b) provides that every person, being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is […]...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty without Specifying The Limb Is Invalid

Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards penalty order, firstly, the correct limb was not struck off or rather indicated by the Assessing Officer in the notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,339)
Company Law (7,086)
Custom Duty (8,392)
DGFT (4,505)
Excise Duty (4,468)
Fema / RBI (4,613)
Finance (4,878)
Income Tax (36,519)
SEBI (3,894)
Service Tax (3,695)

Search Posts by Date

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930