-
DTAA will prevail over the provisions of sec.206AA of the Act. Therefore, the TDS done as per the DTAA is correct. Similar view has been taken in the case of Danisco India (P)Ltd.vs Union of India. It was the ACIT-CPC-TDS who passed the order u/s.154 of the Act and therefore if the CIT(A) is of the view that the issue was debatable then the order u/s.154 of the Act should have been cancelled by him. He dismissed the appeals of the Assessee without realizing that the order u/s.154 of the Act was passed by the ACIT-CPC-TDS and not on any application filed by the Assessee.
M/S ARVIND LIFESTYLES BRANDS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTAR PRADESH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22375 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82851&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal in assessee’s own case has taken a view that for the purpose of computing the capital employed for allowing deduction u/s 35D of the Act, the FCCBs should also be taken into consideration.
M/S SUBEX LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (1) (2) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22369 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82832&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Occupancy certificate issued by BBMP is dated 30.03.2016. Hence in the present year i.e. F. Y. 2014 – 15 relevant to A. Y. 2015 – 16, the Building was not complete and therefore, what is sold cannot be flat but only right in the flat. Hence, it is seen that in the facts of the present case, capital Asset in question is not the flats but right to obtain flats from the builder.
ACIT, CIRCLE – 2 (2) (1) , BANGALORE VERSUS CA BADRINATH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22341 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82680&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the condition prescribed to the effect that the shares of venture capital undertaking should not have been listed in a recognized stock exchange shall apply only at the time of making investment. The VCF Regulations do not prohibit cases where the initial investments made in unlisted shares of Venture Capital undertaking becomes listed shares due to corporate actions.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (1) , BENGALURU. VERSUS M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA VALUE FUND IIIA) AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22340 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82681&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had entered into an “agreement of sale” for purchase of an agricultural land located in Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Tq. A perusal of the said agreement would show that as per clause 4.6 of the agreement, the vendor shall effect conversion of scheduled property from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6 (2) (1) , BENGALURU VERSUS SHRI NARAYAN MANDYAM VEERABHUDHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22339 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82682&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case of Manoj Kumar Jaiswal this Tribunal decided identical issue holding that the Act contains provision for declaring a return of income filed as invalid u/s.139(9) of the Act. There is no such provision for declaring a return of TDS as invalid. There is no power conferred, either under those provisions or under any other provisions of the Act, to declare the return of TDS filed u/s. 200(3) as non est.
SAROJA VASANTH VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22335 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82647&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the entire section 54, the requirement that the purchase to be made or the construction to be put up by the assessee, should be in the name of the assessee, is not expressly stated. Therefore, to attract section 54 of the Act, what is material is the investment of the sale consideration in acquiring or constructing residential premises. Once the sale consideration is invested in any of these manners, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit conferred under these provisions.
SMT. PINKY VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2) (1) BENGALURU.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22329 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82613&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For assessment year 2008-09, Ld.AO passed final assessment order immediately within 2 days of receipt of report from Ld. TPO whereas for assessment year 2009-10 final assessment order was passed after a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of transfer pricing report. Present assessee is an eligible assessee, as defined in section 144C (15) (b) of the Act.
M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2 (1) (1) (1) , BENGALURU. AND JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME – TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22295 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82467&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order passed by Ld CIT(A) quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation does not call for any interference, as the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD. wherein held period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A).
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) , CIRCLE-2 (1) , BENGALURU. VERSUS M/S INFOSYS LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22293 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82476&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO considers income from Millennium project as Business income then he should allow all the expenses claimed by the Assessee and therefore the income from Millennium project arrived at by the AO at ₹ 1,17,35,191 was not proper. By reason of this conclusion, there would be only loss from the project Millennium and therefore there is no occasion to allow deduction u/s.80IAB(4)(iii).
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11 (3) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22292 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, the grounds raised in the CO are independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue and therefore such a cross objection cannot be dismissed simply on the ground of dismissal of the appeal by the revenue involving low tax effect. The residential premises of the Assessee was searched u/s. 132 of the Act on 26.10.2007.
SHRI. G. SOMASHEKAR REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1 (3), BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22274 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
First proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11 to 13 have been duly fulfilled by the said trust. The benefit of retrospective application alone could be the intention of the legislature and this point is further strengthened by the Explanatory Notes to Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No. 01/2015 dated 21.1.2015.
M/S. BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4) MYSURU.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22250 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82359&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We also notice from the assessment order that the parent company has not reimbursed the amount only on account of change of policy of the parent company. The internal decision taken by two related concerns cannot be a ground in allowing the claim of write off.
Tektronix (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22234 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
We have already held that the provision for warrant expenses is not contingent and has to be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head Income from Business & Profession. As a consequence of such finding, the addition made to the book profits is to be deleted because the liability cannot be said to be contingent.
M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21231 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37
-
The provision for gratuity is ascertained liability and the same falls outside the scope of the provisions of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Sec.115JB warranting no addition to the book profits.
KMF Infotech Ltd., Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21230 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 115JB
-
ITAT - The fact that the assessee made a request for reasons recorded prior to filing the return of income and thereafter did not seek a copy of reasons recorded is no ground to deny the assessee the benefit of looking into the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147.
M/s Hotel Woodside Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21204 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
When there is no decision by the revenue for the earlier years, then there cannot be consistency for no-decisions.
General Motors Overseas Corporation Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21185 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The contribution made for creation of cricket academy can be held to be in business interest and hence allowable u/s 37.
Royal Challengers Sports Pvt.Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21181 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37
-
Sec. 11 & 12 are the substantive provisions providing exemptions to charitable/religious Trusts while Sec. 12A & 12AA are procedural in nature providing for the procedural requirements for making an application to claim the benefits u/s. 11 & 12.
Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21160 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 12A
-
The payments made by the assessee is towards provision of bandwidth/telecommunications services for the use of, or right to use equipment.
M/s. Vidal Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income – tax (OSD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21159 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections 9(1)(vi), 194J
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.