-
(i) A representative office of a foreign enterprise is not a taxable unit. The foreign enterprise is the taxable unit. A return of income filed in the name of the representative office, with the PAN of the enterprise, offering only the income of the representative office & excluding the other Indian income of the enterprise is not proper. However, as the error is inadvertent and without any consequences in terms of loss of revenue, a pragmatic approach must be adopted and the assessee should not be subjected to avoidable inconvenience (ii) As regards the taxability of interest income under the India-Germany DTAA, as the debt claim in question was not "effectively connected" to the alleged PE, the exclusion article 11(5) was not triggered and the taxability under article 7 does not come into play (Entire law discussed in detail)
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24821 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Once the assessee bank is required to be treated an Indian company for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be open to us to hold that it will not be treated as a company for the purposes of Section 115JB.
Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The DZ Bank AG and DZ Bank India Representative Office are only one taxable unit, that the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the same assessee twice- once under one article of the treaty i.e. Article 11, and then under another article of the treaty, i.e. Article 7.
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
If amenities works were actually been undertaken by the builder as per amenities agreement, the same would certainly need to be included in the cost of acquisition.
Mrs. Rashmi Mahendra Dhanani Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24725 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee has no right to sell any unit, the godown right was embedded in the cost of the units developed which were sold by SNCML. Section 45(2) which relates to capital gain arising out of conversion of capital asset into stock-in- trade requires that in order to be chargeable to tax, there has to be a transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act and capital gain shall be brought to tax in the year in which the stock-in-trade has been sold.
ITO Vs M/s Kidderpore Holdings Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24719 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
We see no need to address the broader issue of whether or not tax is deductible from the payments made by the assessee to Facebook Ireland Limited for the advertisements placed on Facebook, and whether or not income embedded in such payments in taxable in India.
Interactive Avenues Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Pre-amendment provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) would not be applicable to transactions where substantial obligations have been discharged prior to coming into effect of the amendment and only the registration was done post-amendment.
Shri Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24681 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
The revenue is authorised to collect taxes in accordance with law as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India and not based on the consent or acceptance of the assessee either in the return or during the course of assessment or appellate proceedings.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Godrej Properties Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24680 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - When the assessee tries to explain the tax authorities they did not believe and also not verified the same by calling for explanation from the tax auditors. In our considered view that tax authorities should have called for clarification from the tax auditor and completed assessment based on the clarification.
SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO 15 (3) (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24669 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86832&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where assessee had sufficient interest free funds available with it which can take care of investment made in exempt income yielding assets, no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made.
M/S PRINT SERVICES VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-21 (2) (5) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24662 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86805&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
the investment made by the assessee company in other sister concerns rather we can say subsidiary companies are meant to be for commercial expediency and commercial necessity.
GTL LTD. VERSUS ACIT, LTU-2, MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24661 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86807&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction u/s 10AA is to be given at the stage of computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act.
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24614 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 10AA, 37(1)
-
Where a partnership was dissolved, but the assessee either individually or along with some other partners continue to carry on the same business, the assessee was entitled to set off his share of unabsorbed loss from the firm against his business income from the A.Y. in question.
Sh. Yerram Venkata Subba Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24613 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Mobilization fee, as contended by Revenue, is an inextricable part of time charter service and since the consideration received on time charter services does not fall under the definition of royalty under the DTAA, mobilization fee received is also not taxable.
Smit Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24612 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Amount received by partner on retirement from the partnership firm does not amount to transfer, (as contemplated in section 2(47)) hence non taxable capital receipt.
Dr. Vithal V. Kamat Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24611 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The initiation of re-assessment proceedings and subsequent framing of re- assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is illegal and bad in law.
M/s.Tata Chemicals Limited Vs Additional CIT 2(3) (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24608 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - TDS compliance by licensee has no bearing on taxability of unrealized rent in licensor's hands.
M/s Vishwaroop Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24598 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Sec.50 is confined to the computation of capital gains only and cannot be extended beyond that. Capital gains from sale of building should be taxed at LTCG rate.
DCIT Vs Voltas Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24566 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 112
-
In the impugned order, there is no trace of patent, manifest and self-evident error which can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is not permissible under the Act.
Dorf Ketal Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT, CC-8
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24537 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Declining the claim of the assessee by the AO nowhere attracted the penalty being it is not a case of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income.
Jamsetji Tata Trust Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24516 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.