-
Since the original assessment order was quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice, the seized material which was the basis of the original assessment order, can be the basis for reopening assessment under Sec. 147 and 148.
Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24896 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As the assessee has gifted the share, there is no accrual of any revenue to the assesse there is not any inflow of cash, receivables or other consideration, there is no question of accrual of any consideration to the assesse.
Manjula Finance Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24867 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In absence of there being some enabling provision allowing AO to change the method of valuation, the choice of method adopted by the assessee cannot be disturbed.
TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24857 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Additions in the hands of assessee's group companies of the same amount, does not make it double taxation in the hands of the present assesse.
DCIT Vs Paramount Residency Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24819 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case failing which CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
Numex Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24776 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HI was economically dependent on HC as HC's business was dependent on installation of equipments by HI which were supplied by HC and that HI could not bid on its own as it did not supply equipments.
M/s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd Vs The Additional D.I.T International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24766 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Section 56(2)(viib) is applicable on sums received from Residents only.
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24757 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the Act on enhanced compensation is still a part of compensation and is a capital receipt taxable under the head capital gains.
Ram Kishan Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24721 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Explanation cannot defeat the intention and purpose of a section and as such the application of Explanation 3 will have to be in accordance with checks and balances which are applicable at the time of issuance of notice under section 148.
INS Finance & Investment P. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24702 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - AO is directed to adopt GP rate of 16% on purchases of ₹ 3,05,34,283/- from the six creditors which comes to ₹ 48,85,485/- as against the addition of the entire amount payable to the six parties u/s 68.
MANJU SHARMA VERSUS ITO, WARD-45 (5) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24666 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86840&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the AO has not applied his mind at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings by satisfying himself if it is a case of “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” then the entire penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are vitiated and bad in law.
M/S. CHEGG INDIA (P) LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 6 (1), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24658 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86819&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Forced abandonment of property would not tantamount to transfer u/s 45 and even if it did result in transfer, section 45 provides that capital gains is chargeable in the year in which the transfer took place.
Continental Construction Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24657 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The maximum amount that the assessee can be directed to deposit would be 20% of the remaining demand.
TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24646 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessee was working in UK for more than 183 days which was never disputed by the Revenue at any point of time. Besides this the Revenue authorities are very well aware that the assessee has paid taxes in for the remuneration received in UK. The assessee is a resident of India. Therefore, Article 16(2) does not apply in the present scenario.
Kapil Dev Ranwan Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24636 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since in the instant case services are rendered outside India in respect of which the employees received salary outside India, it cannot be said that the same accrue or arise in India and thus the provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) were not applicable since the salary is not taxable in India.
Ecorys Nederlands B. V. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24607 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(iii)
-
ITAT - Foreign exchange gain on redemption of shares at par is a non taxable capital receipt.
Havells India Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24606 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No TDS is required on payments made to foreign attorneys based in such countries, that qualify for the benefit of Article on IPS.
Shri Hariharan Subramaniam Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24591 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Interest on employee loans & advances, interest of customer outstanding, and miscellaneous income are all eligible for deduction as they all are inextricably linked to profits and gains of eligible undertaking.
Gail (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT-LTU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24569 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80I/IA/HH
-
ITAT - When the income is taxed as remuneration from firm as business income, any expenditure incurred to earn that income is an allowable business expenditure.
Anand Prasad Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24565 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The income of the foreign branch from the credit given to its card holders outside India cannot be taxed in the hands of the Indian branch since it has not arisen in India and also it cannot be attributed to the assets and activities of the Indian branch, as is required by Article 7 of the DTAA.
Standard Chartered Grindlays Vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24539 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 37(1), 44C
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.