-
No detail finding given by the CIT(A) as regards to how the concealment of particular of income relating to the confirmation in respect of unsecured loan/receipt of cash and insurance commission comes within the purview of Section 271(1)(c).
DEVENDER KUMAR C/O. RAJESH KUMAR GOYAL VERSUS ITO WARD-1 HISAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22707 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear that the satisfaction note u/s.153C was based on certain seized documents found during the course of search and seizure action initiated in Kalra Group cases/Consortium Securities Pvt. Ltd.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. REALTECH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22696 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83663&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessment order did not record any satisfaction as to for which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The A.O. merely mentioned at the bottom of the assessment order after computing the income that “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately.” Thus there is a violation of the Law in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act against the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.
SHRI RAJ KUMAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62 (2), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22690 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83645&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case apparently, AE has not provided any capital to the appellant on which income is earned. It is a corporate guarantee, being a surety to the lender bank of the appellant that, if in a case, in future, the appellant fails to pay the due amount owed to those lenders, the Netherland Company will pay to those lenders. Thus, there was promise to reimburse the amount to those lenders on happening of an event i.e. failure of payments by the appellant of the dues owed to the lenders and lenders invoking the guarantee issued by the Netherlands company in favour of those lenders.
LEASE PLAN INDIA PVT. LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-4 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22688 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83653&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the said case where the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of ESOP in profit and loss account was deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD, VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-13 (1), NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22687 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83656&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 143(3)/ 292BB: Under CBDT Instruction No.5/2016, a case earmarked for 'Limited Scrutiny' cannot be taken for 'Complete Scrutiny' unless the AO forms a "reasonable view" that there is a possibility of under assessment of income. The objective of the instruction is to (i) prevent fishing and roving enquiries; (ii) ensure maximum objectivity; and (iii) enforce checks and balances upon the powers of the AO. On facts, there is not an iota of cogent material shown by the AO for the conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The PCIT has also accorded approval in a mechanical manner. S. 292BB does not save the infirmity. The assessment order has to be quashed as a nullity
Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl CIT
(2020) TaxCorp (A.T.) 83612 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by the Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached the conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. We have also gone through the statement of assessee's Director Mr. Rohit Verma which was recorded on 18.07.2017 i.e., after the conversion of the case and even in his statement nothing adverse is coming out vis. a vis. the impugned transactions.
DEV MILK FOODS PVT. LTD., C/O KAPIL GOEL ADVOCATE VERSUS ADD. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE -3 NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22675 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The non-inclusive part consists of consideration for the sale distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films. The Assessing Officer misread the provision in the second part of the clause with regard to exhibition of cinematographic films. He wrongly held that what the assessee purchased is copyrights and hence liable to TDS. In fact, the copyrights are always with the producer. The distributor is only given the right exhibition of cinematographic films.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-34 (3) VERSUS YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI AND SH. YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-19 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22664 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83576&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee society has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act by the department and, therefore, it remains undisputed that the department had found the activities of the assessee society genuine and, therefore, the genuineness of the activities cannot be doubted within a short span of six months.
M/S. PRADEEP EDUCATION SOCIETY VILL VERSUS CIT (EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDING
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22663 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83575&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Available information in the return is already on record with the assessing officer. Such a situation, it is possible that AO may on looking at the notice itself find it necessary to issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the act. Thus imputing waiting time to the AO for issue of notice u/s143 (2) of the act is perhaps not justified. Because, in such cases the AO might have verified the original return of income at the time of issue of notice u/s148 of the act, if he does not find such information in the return, then only he issues notice u/s 148 of the act. Otherwise, why he would issue a notice if the information is available in the original return it.
SHRI HEMANT MITTAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 HISSAR HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22660 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83569&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Trust Deed of the assessee clearly explained that at the time of winding up what procedure has to be followed of the corpus fund and other funds including movable and immovable property.
SUVIPRA SHIKSHA SANSTHAN VERSUS ITO EXEMPTION WARD GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22657 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83573&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The basis of the above reason was a report of survey and the details of the transaction carried out by the assessee. The report shows that it is not a genuine error because of the reason that it is not wrong punching of one or two keys but, code has been replaced. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a genuine loss. There is no assessment of income of the assessee u/s 143 (3) prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. He perused the above information with the return of income filed by the assessee.
ARUNACHAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (2) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22652 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83563&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the assessee had invested the long term capital gains in purchase of land towards construction of house but could not complete the construction before the expiry of 3 years as to pretend under law in the case of Sri Prasad Nimmagadda held that on examination of section 54 and 54F it is found that the provisions contained in section 54 including the proviso are pari materia with section 54F.
DEEPAK BHARDWAJ VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) , NOIDA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22651 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83564&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute that the seller of the share is a resident of Cyprus, holding necessary tax residency certificate, therefore, the recipient of the income is entitled to take the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Cyprus. AO and the assessee both agree that under the Indian income tax act, the transaction is taxable in India by virtue of the provisions of section 5 (2) and 9, but taxability is to be determined as per DTAA.
DCIT, CIRCLE-17 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS NARMIL INFOSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD, C/O AAR & ASSOCIATES, CA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22647 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83524&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We have two rates for quantifying the additional profits i.e. 0.61% of CIT(A) and 0.51% of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07. The turnover is found increased for the assessment year 2007-08. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the additional profits at 0.51% needs to be revised marginally. If the same is done, we find the decision of the CIT(A) with 0.61% of additional profits should be considered proper and appropriate.
S.C. THAKUR & BROTHERS AND THAKUR INFRAPROJECT P. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA) AND DCIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22642 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83497&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute about the payment of the interest and the utilization of the loans received by the business entity. The invocation of the Section 40A(2)(b) by the AO in this case is on a wrong interpretation/application of the provisions. The provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) entitles disallowance on account of any expenditure being excessive are unreasonable having regard to the fair market value. In the instant case, we find that the amounts have been received from the partnership firm by the loan parties and if at all any disallowance is to be made, the same needs to be considered in the hands of the partnership firms but not in the proprietary concern.
AMIT MEHRA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22641 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83498&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no such material or finding in the impugned order that any such kind of project or supervisory activity was carried out for more than six months in India. There has to be some kind of onsite planning and supervision activity which is completely absent here in this case, firstly, for the reason that the services have been rendered from outside India and secondly, there is no finding that any personnel of assessee have been performing any kind of such activity in India for a period of more than six months.
IDIADA AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SH. S. KALYANASUNDARAM VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-3 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22637 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83490&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned dispute resolution panel in assessee’s own case for assessment year 14-15 has also rejected Modi care Limited as comparable and accepted the transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench direct learned TPO to adopt transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method and also not to take Modicare Ltd as the comparable.
M/S ORIFLAME INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE : 7, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22635 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83492&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of the consistent finding of the Tribunal since assessment year 2008-09, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 we set aside the order of the lower authorities and hold the activity of purchase and sale of shares in question as investment activity to be assessed under the head capital gain. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT Where shares are held as investment in the investee company, may be for the purpose of having controlling interest therein.
M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-20 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22631 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83485&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As per Section 144C of the Act, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to pass draft Assessment Order. But instead of that, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.10.2019 merely captioned the final Assessment Order as Draft Assessment Order along with issuance of notices under Section 156 and 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which means a final Assessment order u/s 144C was passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 144C.
NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE-3 (1) GURGAON, HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22623 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83481&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.