-
The excess expenditure over income can be carried forward for setting off against income of subsequent years.
Improvement Trust Fatehabad Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20888 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
-
CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing but the assessee has not produced any evidences before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Assessing Officer to corroborate those statements that the assessee company was engaged in providing only accommodation entries. The assessee-company has not provided any affidavits from the beneficiary companies to support its claim of being engaged in providing accommodation entries.
ITO, WARD-14 (4), NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. KULDEEP TEXTILES (P.) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20883 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act, AO has not recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 14A(2) that the working given by the assessee is not correct. It is incumbent upon the AO to record satisfaction as to the working given by the assessee that no expenses have been incurred by it to earn the dividend income. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A is not sustainable, hence ordered to be deleted.
M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20879 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the payments were made for business purpose and the Revenues earned and declared by the assessee show the proportion of benefit, because the assessee travelled from losses to profit after their collaboration with the Arkadin SA, France.
DCIT, CIRCLE- 3 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS ARKADIN CONFER INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20869 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81424&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The title of the properties in the goods was transferred outside India, further payments were received outside India for offshore supplies. Income from offshore supplies is not liable to tax in India both u/s 44BBB as well as under the provisions of Article 7 r.w. para 6 of DTAA between India and Japan for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd Vs DDIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20844 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The share application money until the shares are not allotted, is capital, borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. Until and unless, there is an embargo and restriction under section 36(1)(iii), no disallowance can be made in respect of interest paid on the share application money.
Panarc Consulting Group Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20842 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
Since the Assessing Officer has initiated fresh penalty proceedings subsequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution, we are of the considered view that penalty levied on the basis of previous order, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and against which the Revenue is in appeal before us, becomes infructous.
Mcdonald’s India Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20841 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Fact remains that as on the date there is no change of circumstances nor the orders of the Tribunal are rendered invalid.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20838 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
CBDT had clarified that penalty u/s 272B is linked to the person, i.e. the deductor, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the form.
Veetee Fine Foods Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20837 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 272B
-
The assessee is not engaged in raising the FCCB with motive of any trading and discounting and thereby earning profit on the same. The allegation by the Assessing Officer of motive and intent of earning profit by the assessee are unsubstantiated with any evidences.
OK Play India Ltd Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20835 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is an admitted fact that in the present case the agreement in question was found during the course of search in the case of Shri Naresh Sabharwal and proceedings u/s 153A have been initiated against him. Therefore, the agreement in question have been transferred by A.O. of the person searched to the A.O. of the assessee for the purpose of taking remedial action in the matter.
SHRI ADARSH AGRAWAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-61 (1), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20827 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81334&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though, according to the builder the transaction of the sale is concluded as and when risk and reward passes to the buyer, but in case of the assessee, who is a service provider, commission accrues only at the time of complete services are rendered including receipt of payment by the builder.
Goldmine Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20824 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The services provided to the assessee are not any specialized services but only standard facilities, which are available to all the airlines and hence, do not fall within the provisions of technical services as provided u/s 194J.
Inter Globe Aviation Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20814 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It can be said that where a superior title is created before any income accrues or arises, it would be the diversion of income by overriding title but where there is no obligation attached and income is applied as per assessee's own choice after it accrues, it will not be a case of diversion by superior title as no superior title existed.
Emaar MGF Construction Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20813 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The object of the Shunglu Committee was to determine, if the purchase of 333 additional flats by DDA was according to the norms / rules and had not caused any loss to the exchequer. Its object was not to determine the cost or expenditure to the assessee, indeed, the assessee was never called to the proceedings of the Shunglu Committee, nor was any input / clarification taken from the assessee.
EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20811 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has explained before the authorities below, the circumstances of which payments have been made to the relatives and also expenditure as to what services they have rendered for the assessee company along with their qualification. In earlier year, similar salary have been allowed deduction by the Revenue Department. There is nothing unreasonable in this regard.
DCIT CIRCLE-14 (2) NEW DELHI. VERSUS KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20810 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81283&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addl. CIT and Ld. Pr. CIT while granting approval for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act merely stated “Yes”, which would show that they have not applied their independent mind and merely accorded sanction without going through any material on record. The issue is thus covered against the Revenue by the aforecited decisions in which even on more facts the approval was not found valid.
M/S. CHARBHUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20809 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The legislative intent is to apply s. 56(2)(viib) where unaccounted money received in garb of share premium. The AO has not made out a case that stated money is not clean money. Also, the assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report justifying share premium raised based on valid and prescribed method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms. AO has not countered the said report by substitute valuation. Also, if the shares are sold in next FY at much higher amount, the premium cannot be said to be excessive (Lalithaa Jewellery 178 ITD 503 (Chennai) followed)
Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20805 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act for the instalments paid prior to one year from the date of sale of asset which is 28.07.20120 and, accordingly, the assessee is entitled for benefit of instalments paid on and after 28.07.2011.
Gulshan Arora Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20790 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Assessee is liable to pay securities transaction tax when he enters into securities transaction. Tax is payable simultaneously after realizing the consideration. However, if that transaction is included in the total income of the assessee where the total income is assessed either under the provisions of the Act or under Section 115JB when tax chargeable on such income is arrived at, he is given the benefit of tax deductions of the amount, which he has paid under section 88E by virtue of Section 87.
VICTORY PORTFOLIO LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-17 (1) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20788 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81233&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.