-
S. 56(2) (viib): The object of s. 56(2)(viib) is to tax excessive share premium received unjustifiably by private companies on issue of shares without carrying underlying value. However, shares issued to shareholders of an amalgamating company in terms of a scheme of amalgamation does not fall within the sweep of the deeming provisions of s. 56(2) (viib). The so-called excess value of assets vested on amalgamation cannot be notionally termed as premium over the face value for the purposes of the deeming provision (AS-14 issued by the ICAI & CBDT Circular No 3/2012 dated 12-6-2012 referred)
DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26538 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56(2) (viib)
-
In so far as the applicability of the scope/tax rate w.r.t. the remittance made to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the beneficial tax rate contained in the DTAAs.
Jyoti Limited Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26432 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 206AA
-
In absence of PE or business connection in India, commission paid to non-resident agents was not liable to tax under the provision of the act.
GHCL Ltd Vs Dy. CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26402 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
In order to bring to tax a receipt an assessee should have unflinching right of ownership and disposition, control and use, and in the impugned case, it seems that everything is belonging to the company.
Yatish Kumar Amarnath Bansal Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26350 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Application under Rule 24 of ITAT Rules is not guided by any time limit and sufficient cause for non-appearance is the only requirement.
Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs The DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The cost incurred to secure the foreign currency liability against the exchange fluctuation is akin to insurance policies, taken in the course and for the purpose of the business and hence, deductible u/s 37(1).
Deep Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26034 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 43A
-
The primary onus lay upon the assessee to establish that the assessee does not hold the voting power beyond the stipulated threshold limit in the same proportion as equity shares for which burden was sought to be wrongly shifted upon the AO.
Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24684 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 151
-
Question of possession of insider information is irrelevant short-term capital loss incurred with respect to the units which were purchased within a period of three months prior to the record date and sold within a period of nine months after such record date, shall be ignored to the extent of such loss, not exceeding the amount of dividend income for computing the income chargeable to tax.
Yesha Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24638 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
It would be impracticable i.e. impossible for the assessee to discharge onus u/s 68 where no actual cash inflow happened.
M/s. Rich Paints Ltd. Vs ITO-4(2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24616 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 68
-
The refund of salary by the assessee was not voluntary but was to comply with the legal requirements, therefore, the same cannot be considered as income assessable to tax.
The Dy. CIT Vs Shri Rajamannar Thennati
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24609 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
In the present case there was no reference made by the authorities below suggesting that the transaction is carried illegally. Moreover, the transactions in the instant case were within the ambit of the law as per the provision of section 2(1B) of the Act.
Urmin Marketing P. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24492 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the AO is statutorily debarred for forming any satisfaction either at the time of assessment order or subsequent thereto.
M/s. B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24467 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 271E
-
Deletion of penalty is upheld following jurisdictional HC ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Ltd. and recent ruling in Ryatara Sahakari Karkhane Niyamitha, for AO's failure to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated.
ACIT Vs Smt. Mamatha Mohan
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Provision of section 195 are not applicable to the reimbursement of demurrage charges paid to the non-resident shipping company on behalf of the assessee by Wilmar Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Gokul Refoils & Solvent Ltd. Vs The Dy. CIT, International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24440 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 195
-
One more opportunity required to be provided to the assessee for adjudicating both the cases on merit. However, the assessee has agreed to pay cost of Rs 5000/- . In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we restore this ex-parte order to the file of ld. CIT(E) for deciding afresh.
Yug Prabhavak Trust Vs CIT(Exemption)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 12AA
-
The payment under section 36(1)(va) would be allowed in respect to the payment of employee contribution towards ESI if such payment is made on/before due date as specified under the relevant Act.
Morakhia Copper and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23121 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 36(1)(va)
-
Since no depreciation can be claimed for individual assets under the Block of assets concept under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is eligible as per the block of asset.
Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Statement furnished by the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act, during the search proceedings and note that even in the statement there was no reference to any such material found during the course of search for the income disclosed by the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 153A.
M/S GURUPRASAD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22992 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84173&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
This issue is entirely covered in assessee's own case by the judgment and order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in favour of the assessee.
MEGHMANI ORGANICS LIMITED VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22990 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84178&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As relying on VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. We find substance in the argument made by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee to this effect that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. In that view of the matter we find it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for re-computing the disallowance under Section 14A in terms of the observation made hereinabove.
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS ASST. CIT CIRCLE-2 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22981 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84154&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.