-
The expression does not form part of the total income u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year, for the purpose of disallowance of any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, section 14A of the Act would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) , BENGALURU VERSUS M/S. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21156 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82160&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not deducting TDS on the LTC payments made towards foreign travel. Accordingly we hold that penalty u/s 271C is not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act for the year under consideration.
STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS THE ACIT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, RANGE-3, BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21154 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82165&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Converting raw coffee beans which are not fit for human consumption as such to liquid coffee which is fit for human consumption has to be considered as manufacturing activity, as it is an irreversible process producing different marketable product fit for human consumption.
Coffee Day Global Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21122 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The legislature did not make the law retrospective in operation nor were pending proceedings as was done when Sec.142A was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.r.e.f. from 15.11.1972. It cannot also be said that Sec.142A as inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 has retrospective effect.
Shetty Constructions Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21086 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 142A
-
Show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the I.T.Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to, whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
SRI. KASIMALI M. SAYYAD C/O. A RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND ASSOCIATES, GADAG VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 1, GADAG.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21081 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82004&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has assumed valid jurisdiction in this case by issue of proper notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act within the time contemplated by law. The original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act has not been treated as non est and the revised return is only for the purpose of certain errors and mistakes in the original return. In such circumstances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21064 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to DVO in the present case is invalid because as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinemas Vs. CIT rejection of books of accounts is a pre-condition for making a reference to DVO and there was admittedly no such rejection of books of accounts. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law on the issue that the reference to DVO in the present case is illegal and any addition made on the basis of such report cannot be sustained.
M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- (1), KALABURAGI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21059 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81933&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee herein has given advance for purchase of land in the year 2005 and accordingly acquired right for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said right constitutes capital asset within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act. Subsequent money received for giving up the said right constitutes capital gains in the hands of the assesse.
Shri Narayan Mandyam Veerabhudhi Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21009 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
ITAT - No notional interest income accrued to assessee on capital contributions/loan by partners in absence of profits earned by the Partnership firms.
Minnow Trading Company Pvt. Ltd Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Clause (b) visualizes listing of shares in future, meaning thereby, the subsequent listing of shares should not be a bar for availing exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. It can be noticed that the VCF Regulations prescribes conditions to be followed at the time of making investments only.
True North Fund IIIA (formerly Known as India Value Fund IIIA) Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21000 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10(23FB)
-
If the purchase of a new house was made out of sale consideration on transfer of capital asset, then the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F.
Smt.Pinky Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20981 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Assessee could not substantiate before us as to how the AO made enquiries on this issue before concluding the assessment, except by pointing out that all facts were laid before the AO and it can be presumed that he had taken note of this aspect while concluding the assessment. The fact that the AO himself initiated proceedings u/s.154 of the Act to rectify error apparent on record on the aspect of having allowed service tax input written off as a deduction goes to show that he had while completing the Assessment not enquired or was not conscious of the merits of the claim for deduction of the aforesaid sum while computing income.
M/S. METRIC STREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20980 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As earlier that the assessee has sold agricultural land located within the Municipal limits to a person named Sri Rajesh Runawal, for a consideration of ₹ 13.05 lakhs. However, since Shri Rajesh Runawal agreed before the ADIT(Inv.)Belgaum that the sale consideration was 34.60 lakhs, the assessee also declared the sale consideration at ₹ 34.60 lakhs, as noticed earlier.
SHRI LATE GURAPPA P GAWALI, REP. BY LEGAL HEIR GURAPPA PARASAPPA GAWALI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIJAPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20943 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not correct to state that the Tribunal has given a finding in paragraph-7 of its order that the Assessee filed details of TDS statement filing dates before CIT(A). The Tribunal has only stated in paragraph-7 that it was submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A) that it had filed TDS for the relevant FYs as per details given below.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20940 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81625&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present case, the A.O. has applied the provisions of section 50C for the computation of additional capital gain on the basis of the value adopted for registration of the said property. Apart from the stamp duty valuation, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received extra sale consideration over and above the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed.
SRI. SALEH MOHD. SALIM VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (1) BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20939 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied. Asking the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the expenditure to the extent of 92% of gross receipts, would also defeat the purpose of presumptive taxation as provided under section 44AD of the Act or other such provision. Since the scheme of presumptive taxation has been formed in order to avoid the long drawn process of assessment in cases of small traders or in cases of those businesses where the incomes are almost of static quantum of all the businesses.
SRI. GIRISH V. YALAKKISHETTAR SUJATHA BUILDINGS YALAKKISHETTAR COLONY DHARWAD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4) HUBLI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20923 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81588&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji, has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay.
MS. SEENA DEEPAK VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20899 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81515&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 54F: The words "in India" cannot be read into section 54F when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the words. The assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act though he has acquired house property in a foreign country. The amendment to s. 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 2015 is applicable only prospectively (all imp verdicts considered)
Rajasugumar Subramani vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20845 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Addition made by the AO on account of alleged excess share premium was unjustified when those very shares were sold in the next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non-resident buyer and further there was no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) was liable to be deleted.
Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20779 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The reason why there is difference in apportionment between the Assessee and the revenue is because of inclusion of STCG earned by the Assessee on his own without the services of the PMS provider has also been included by the revenue in the income generated through the services of PMS providers.
Smt. Sudha Narayanamurthy Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20778 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.