-
As per provisions of section 14A disallowance has to be computed having regards to the accounts of the assessee and if the said method adopted by the assessee was found to be not satisfactory, only then the computation was to be done as per Rule 8D.
Tata Projects Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24514 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14
-
There is no separate interest expenditure incurred by assessee other than the interest incurred to earn interest income, therefore disallowance u/s.14A is unwarranted.
Shri Vinay Ramakant Sapte Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24477 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 57(iii)
-
For invoking Sec. 36(1)(ii), the AO will have to give clear cut finding as to what was tax avoidance or tax evasion involved in this case.
Mehta Equities Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24475 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(ii)
-
No deduction for the aforesaid provision was claimed by the assessee while computing its income for the year in which it was created i.e A.Y 2013-14, the inclusion of the same on its reversal in the books of account during the year in question i.e A.Y 2017-18 would undoubtedly lead to a double taxation in its hands.
BNP Paribas India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the information furnished by the deductors to Income Tax authorities refers to the assessee only and not to the investors, the AO was required to give credit to the assesse.
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Mile Stone Real Estate
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24353 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Once, it was established that bank account was not belongs to assessee and he was not a beneficial owner, then further additions towards estimated return of income on said unexplained money is arbitrary.
Mr. Kamal Galani Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The tax treaty cannot be thrust upon an assessee. In case the assessee during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years.
Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24326 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Where the addition in the income were made on estimate basis that itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1) Vs M/s. Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24325 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The details of value of tangible assets taken over by the assessee by the slump sale agreement are necessary to be considered for adjudication of this issue.
Demag Delaval Industries Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24299 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee made provision of Rs. 10.24 crore and ultimately made expenses of Rs. 10.46 crore, which clearly demonstrate that assessee made the provision after due diligence which cannot be said to be an adhoc provision.
DCIT Vs M/s HDFC Sales Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24298 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 37, 40(a)(ia)
-
An exception has been carved out in Article 5(5) to exclude an agent from being treated as a PE, if such agent is of an independent status and provides services to the enterprise in the ordinary course of its business.
Overseas Transport Co. Ltd. Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The payment made to non-resident/foreign company towards services rendered outside India, payee had no business connection in India and the services provided by the agents were not managerial in nature. Therefore, the payment made for the said services were not covered u/s 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and not chargeable to tax as fees for technical services in India.
M/s Future Retail Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24263 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
Sometimes, the method applied as per rule 8D (2) (iii) gives absurd results, like the disallowance is more than the actual administrative expenses.
Smt. Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24261 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
The discount given to the customers cannot be subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act and accordingly, disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted.
Tata Sky Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24249 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
This amendment clearly suggests that right to use spectrum is not covered by the provisions of Section 35ABB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had correctly claimed depreciation u/s 32 of the Act prior to insertion of Section 35ABA under the statute.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24242 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 35ABA
-
A transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals.
ITO Vs M/s Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24241 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 61
-
Findings of the AO nowhere establishes that the transaction was undertaken by the assessee to evade taxes.
M/s. Vodafone India Limited Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
A reading of the provision of section 40A (3) of the Act makes the intention of the legislature quite clear to disallow any expenditure incurred in cash whether in Indian currency or in foreign currency, if it exceeds the amount of Rs. 20,000 in rupee term.
Ramlord Apparels Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24202 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40A(3)
-
When there is no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO in the quantum assessment order and penalty initiated on one limb and ultimately levied on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled.
M/s. Emco Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23165 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - The term local authority cannot be rigidly interpreted to mean only a local government as such the Mumbai Port Trust has to be treated as a local authority u/s 23 of the Act.
ACIT 4 (3) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. TAJ IRON & STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23140 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84559&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.