-
The assessee has not furnished any evidence even before us to prove that agricultural operations were carried on the said land but only bald statement is made that water melon and pumpkin was grown. The assessee has filed additional evidences before us to contend that Government of Tamil Nadu vide Notification in G.O. Ms No. 153 dated 20.06.2013 had included Thaiyur Village in the Mamallapuram Local Planning Area , which is post the said previous year.
SRI N. BALAKRISHNAN VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 (1) , CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22476 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83237&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The scope of Information Technology Software as is referred to in Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in assessee’s own case was in context of Customs Laws which was very vide definition and hence we cannot draw analogy in the 1961 Act read with 1962 Rules. Digital contend developed by assessee can be equated with computer program is far fetched but rather it is a copyrighted material developed by assessee which is stored in computer.
M/S. PENTAMEDIA GRAPHICS LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE-I, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22474 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83241&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Appellant has sold entire old machineries during the financial year 2007-08. The appellant has shown the same as sale of scrap vide his invoice dated 09.01.2009. Then how come, the chartered engineer verified the old machinery on 07.01.2014 when that has already become scrap during the FY 2007-08 and also disposed on 09.01.2009.
M/S. COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE – 1, PONDICHERRY., THE JCIT, RANGE – 1, PONDICHERRY.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22473 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83221&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Property is admittedly mortgaged with Catholic Syrian Bank. It is also not in dispute that one of the assessee Smt. Muragasamy Lalitha was suffering from Kidney failure. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the property could not be sold for the market rate may have some justification.
SMT. MURUGASAMY LALITHA, G. GUNASEKARAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) , TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22456 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
This is only a factual verification to be made by the Ld.AO from the records of the earlier years and decide the availability of business loss or unabsorbed depreciation for the purpose of reduction while computing book profit U/s.115JB. AO is directed to do so in accordance with law. Hence, the direction of the Ld.CIT in this regard is hereby upheld with all issues left open for the assessee to present with necessary evidences before the Ld.AO.
M/S. TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE – III (1) , CHENNAI – 34.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22446 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83090&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the reading of aforesaid provisions of Section 15(a) of the Act, it could be concluded that the salary is always taxable on accrual basis. Even as per Provisions of Section 9(1)(ii) which states that income deemed to accrue or arise in India, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India, only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India.
SHRI PAUL XAVIER ANTONY SAMY VERSUS THE ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2 (1) , CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22445 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83092&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has examined the nature and scope of the transactions and found that the impugned transactions are towards business and commercial purpose and there is no benefit accruing to the assessee from such transaction. Thus assessee has clearly established that the impugned transactions are not following within the scope of section 2(22)(e). Revenue is not able to dislodge such findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) by relevant material.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7 (1) , CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI. JETHANAND THAKUR BAKSHANI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22436 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83049&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the assessee has paid all the taxes due on the returned income including the demand raised in the assessment order before 30.09.2010, the assessee is mandated to file the return of income within the prescribed time limit. Since the assessee failed files the return of income within the prescribed time limit, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied under section 271F of the Act was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
M/S. TAMIL NADU FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1) , CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22408 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82977&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As assessee is engaged in the business of development and export of software, providing CTI (Computer Telephonic Integration), system integration, IT consulting services to customers. The assessee has purchased the copyrighted software license from Acqueon Technologies Inc. USA of Acqueon AiQ and IVR connector as off-the-shelf software and used them to develop application as per the requirements of the customers.
M/S. SERVION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22401 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82940&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tax audit report was filed alongwith return filed in response to show cause notice issued u/s.148 of the Act which means that the Assessing Officer had the benefit of tax audit report and no prejudice can said to have been caused for the Department on account of belated submission of tax audit report. We are of the considered opinion that levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act is not warranted.
SMT. HARICHANDRAN KALEESWARI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE RANGE 5 (1) CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22400 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82943&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Poviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is applicable only to organization which is for advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso cannot be applied to an organization which is engaged in the first three limbs of the definition of charitable activity i.e. Relief to the poor, education and medical relief. Admittedly, assessee before us is perusing activity of education. Therefore proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act cannot be applied to the assessee trust.
M/S. ARVINTH CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) NAMAKKAL.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22351 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When assessee is engaged in real estate business and is constructing flats which are meant for the purpose of sale/renting purposes as a business, the interest expenses incurred on borrowings are towards revenue field and was correctly charged to Profit and Loss Account as time cost and claimed as deduction while computing income of the assessee.
SHRI A.K. NATARAJAN, VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VILLUPURAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22300 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82504&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. If the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. BUZZWORKS BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22285 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82440&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is incumbent on the part of the assessee that having promoted industries in the State and having undertaken to participate in the day to day affairs in the management of those undertakings by participating in crucial decision making process, the assessee had to maintain its 24% equity stake in those undertakings at every point in time, so as not to lose controlling interest over the respective undertakings.
Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22252 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee woud be entitled to India-Australia Treaty wherein as per Article-15, salary income of resident of Australia is taxable only in Australia.
Shri Paul Xavier Antony samy Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21200 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
In view of the language employed by Parliament in sub-section (3) to Section 201 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot pass any order after expiry of two years before 01.10.2014.
M/s. L&T Thales Technology Services Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -2(2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21139 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 201
-
Keeping in view totality of circumstances on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the entire transaction for sale of gold jewellery is an afterthought and a sham transaction which is claimed by assessee as he was cornered by Revenue.
Shri A.N.Muthiah Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21138 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The expenditure incurred for acquiring or replacing any machinery to run a factory or mill should be treated as capital expenditure in view of the decision in the case of Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. wherein salient findings are summarised as under. Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. it held that each machine in a textile mill has an independent role to play in the mill and each machine is part of the integrated process of manufacture of yarn and is integrally connected to the other machines in the mill.
M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, VIRUDHUNAGAR., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21085 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81987&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of knowledge made available as per Article 12(4) of India-Netherlands DTAA, payment made to company cannot be considered as fees for technical services.
Alstom India T& D India Limited Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21035 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195
-
A perusal of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) shows that any amount received by an individual without consideration and the aggregate value exceeds 50,000, the whole of the aggregate value is liable to be treated as income under the head income from other sources.
SMT. CYNTHIA RAMONA CHELLAPPA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD – 15 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21015 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81817&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.