-
Provisions of section 46(2) of the Act do not have application to the facts of the present case.
SMT. THANKAMMA SEBASTIAN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2) (4) BENGALURU
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28105 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94849&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The services rendered by the non- resident assessee to MTR Foods are not taxable as per India Singapore DTAA.
Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28100 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Interest expenses directly attributable to tax exempt income is also directly attributable to taxable income are required to be excluded from the computation of common interest expenses to be allocated under Rule 8D(2)(ii).
M/S. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LT. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28097 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94837&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Any expense incurred by way of interest which will benefit the company's director on a personal level will not be allowed as deduction.
Rukmini Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28058 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
No income chargeable in India has accrued in the hands of the foreign agents. Therefore assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the foreign agents.
M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1) (1) BANGALORE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28054 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94788&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the present Act, the Income Tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone.
SHRI K. NAGESH REDDY, SHRI K. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, SMT. RADHIKA REDDY, SHRI K. JAIPAL REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) , BANGALORE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28052 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penalty in the case of assessee cannot be sustained as the assessee was not a person who was subjected to search u/s. 132 of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 271AAB could not be invoked in his case.
SHRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) , BENGALURU. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28046 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94775&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The property though purchased from four Vendors remains as a single property. Being so, the property has to be considered as a single property and deduction u/s. 54F should be granted.
NEELAVARA SANJEEVA RAO VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (2) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28039 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94734&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SCEO Bangalore: Mens rea is not a prerequisite for invocation of Section 276B.
Panacea Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28035 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 276B
-
Section 53A of TPA to be not applicable to the joint development agreement.
Anugraha Shelters (P) Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28017 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 53A
-
Higher of the fair market value or value arrived at basis the valuation methodology has to be adopted for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib).
Medicon Leather Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28015 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
ITAT - Irrecoverable advance paid in the course of business allowed as trading loss as assessee had proceeded u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the managing director of the entity.
Foretell Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27969 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The Assessee being a partnership firm, was not under a statutory obligation for complying with the CSR provisions.
M.Hanumantha Rao Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27967 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37(1)
-
There was no justifiable reason for separating and treating Rs.5.31 Cr. differently from the Prize Money Expenditure of Rs.3.9 Cr.
Infosys Science Foundation Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27917 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 11(2)
-
India Poland DTAA - Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to establish that the non resident payee has any fixed place of business PE in India. In that view of the matter, the income ceases to be taxable in India.
M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1 (1), BANGALORE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27854 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94281&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if Tribunal refuses to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 508 days has to be condoned.
EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), BENGALURU
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27614 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92941&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee was not providing technical services outside India, expenditure in foreign currency can not be excluded from export turnover u/s 10A/10AA.
Infosys BPM Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27573 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10AA
-
ITAT -Revenue did not examine assessee’s valuation under DCF Method as such Rs.257.87 Cr. addition of share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) deleted. Matter to be examined afresh.
GMR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27572 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
ITAT - For the year prior to AY 2016-17, maturity proceeds of fixed deposit by a Trust to be treated as capital receipt and not taxable.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs Income-tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27367 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
ITAT - Upholds capitalization of pre-commencement expenditure in accordance with principles enshrined in AS-10 and also under ICDS-V.
Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27330 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.