-
The assessee though acting as a distributor, is actually making purchases of the software from its AE and is liable to deduct taxes u/s 195.
M/s Kaseya Software India Private Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24553 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 195
-
As per notice issued by the AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the allegation of the AO is specific that the assessee has concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and there is no ambiguity on this aspect as to whether the allegation is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Shri. Mallikarjun H. Meti Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24538 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Non-mentioning of the charge against the assessee in the show cause notice cannot be considered as a mistake, omission or defect.
Shri Mahendra B. Chowhan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24523 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 292B
-
There is no strict requirement of completion of construction u/s 54F(1) to become eligible for exemption. The passport to derive benefit under sec 54F(1) is investment in construction of property within the period required u/s 54F(1) or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 54F of the Act.
Padma Rajagopalan Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24479 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
This claim of expenditure is against the trade practice and the assessee appears to have borne the expenses only on the reasoning that the same was charged upon it by its parent company.
M/s. Nike India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24442 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37
-
Advance received against the land held as stock-in-trade not covered by Sec. 56(2)(ix).
Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24417 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(ix)
-
The assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default in respect of payments made for purchase of licensed software prior to 15.10.2011, being the date of pronouncement of the decision in the case of Samsung Electronics.
M/s. Acer India Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24394 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The relevant point of time at which consideration received as share application money pending allotment becomes consideration for issue of shares, is when shares are allotted/issued to the share applicant.
Taaq Music Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24391 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Membership of a stock exchange not only has an element of permanency but also has the element of being a source of income and, therefore, it must be held to be in the nature of a capital asset.
M/s. BGSE Financials Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24389 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The delay in filing of statement is to be counted from the date of payment of TDS because before the payment of TDS, the quarterly statement cannot be filed and if we compute the delay in this manner, the delay is of 12 days only.
Shri. Sandeep Samantha Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24344 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 234E
-
Time limit for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) ended on 30th Sept 2017, thus the notice was issued beyond period of limitation.
M/s Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24311 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 143(2)
-
When an assessee whose business is to develop real estates, is in a position to perform certain acts towards the acquisition of land, that would clearly show that it is ready to commence business and, as a corollary, that it has already been set-up.
Crown Home Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24264 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Plain reimbursement to a non-resident would not be income chargeable under the Act, and consequently, should not attract obligation to deduct tax source.
Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24252 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The period levying the penalty had to be counted from the date of payment of tax because the delay in filing the return till the date of payment of tax was already explained on the ground that the assessee could not pay the taxes for which separate penal provisions exist.
M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24251 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
In the context of the seller, Sec.50C allows exemption for a variance of 5% between stamp valuation & sales consideration, thus applying the same analogy AO is directed to ignore the difference being less than 10% for the purposes of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b).
Sri Sandeep Patil Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24213 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
In the facts of the present case, section 50D of the Act was applicable because the consideration to be received by the assessee was 50% of super built up area in the form of commercial complex etc. to be constructed by the builder.
Shri. Vivekanand Padegal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24212 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 50D
-
A newspaper report was only a hearsay evidence and cannot be treated as proof of facts reported therein, holds that the amount has been reported in the news articles relied upon by the A.O. without carrying out adequate due diligence and without being ratified by the assessee or the investors, which does not in any case constitute adequate material on record.
ACIT Vs M/s. Reindeer Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24203 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Since, the off shore supply contracts were not taxable in India but TDS was deducted in India therefore assessee was eligible for refund of TDS Credit.
M/s. ABB AB C/o ABB India Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23146 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
For triggering the provisions of the proviso (ii) to section 54F (1), the pre requirement is this that the assessee has purchased one more residential house other than the new asset within one year after the date of transfer of the original asset and this is not enough that some ownership right is acquired by him in such property within such time which has not accrued to him on account of purchase.
Shree Anil Dev Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23123 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Since there is no exempt income in these two years. Section 14A is not triggered.
DCIT Vs M/s Cornerstone Property Investment (P) Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23096 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 36(1)(iii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.