-
Rental income offered by the assessee in the sum of ₹ 57,500/- was only in respect of 100 sq.ft of premises let out for five months. Hence, the corresponding flat deduction @30% towards repairs under the head income from house property was also given only for a period of five months. No deduction for the remaining 7 months has been given, in terms of the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Act. We find that assessee is entitled for proportionate deduction for the remaining period of seven months of these repairs and maintenance in respect of 100 Sq.ft of property.
M/S. WILHELMSEN SHIP MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY CIT 8 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22891 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84042&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Primary function of the assessee is to provide business process outsourcing services (BPO), consisting of inbound customer services, outbound collections, transaction processing, financing and accounting services, knowledge management of complex technologies, telemarketing and invoice processing thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be selected from final list.
M/S. TELEPERFORMENCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS “INTEL GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED”) VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22887 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84021&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Appeal filed by the revenue within currency of the sub-section 2A of Section 253 of the Act, is valid.
Firemenich Aromatics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22883 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 253A
-
Once our Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has expressed a view, it cannot be open for us to be swayed by a contrary view expressed by any other Hon'ble High Court.
IMS AG Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22882 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In none of cases referred by learned counsel of the assessee the exposition is that when there is absolute finding of nonexistence of the share applicant the amount of share application money should be accepted as genuine.
Akansha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22881 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
In the very absence of the possession of the property in question having been delivered to the assessee by the builder/developer, there could have been no occasion for computing the ALV of the same within the meaning of Sec. 23.
Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22879 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 23
-
The conduct of the assessee, actual facts of each case and the surrounding circumstances are to be examined, on merits, and then a call is to be taken about as to whether the explanation of the assessee merits acceptance or not.
Renu T Tharani Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - When interest was allowed as a deduction while computing income under the head 'Income from house property', “it would not be eligible to once again claim deduction of such interest in the garb of cost of acquisition of the property u/s 48 while computing the income under the head Capital gains at the time of sale of the property
M/s Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22869 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 24(b)
-
Although both the parties i.e the assessee and the purchaser had executed a deed of correction wherein they had mentioned that the value of the property as per ready reckoner rate was ₹ 4,53,00,690/-, but then, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that there is no material available on record from where it could be gathered that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority at ₹ 5,53,35,670/- had been substituted by the aforesaid ready reckoner rate of ₹ 4,53,00,690/-. In sum and substance, there is nothing discernible from the records which would reveal that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority had been revised at ₹ 4,53,00,690/-.
M/S SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, MUMBAI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2 (3) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22859 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83982&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO held a bona fide belief that as the assessee had contravened the provisions of Sec. 80IB(10)(a)(iii), it was thus not entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80IB; and the A.O on the basis of verifications carried out in the course of the assessment proceedings for A.Y 2012-13, had gathered, that the built-up area of some of the residential units in the project viz.”Adityavardhan” was more than the prescribed area of 1000 sq. ft, which being in contravention of the norms prescribed in Sec. 80IB(10)(c) rendered the assessee ineligible for claim of deduction under the said statutory provision.
HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23 (1) (5) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22857 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83985&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Both direct and indirect expenses were to be considered for the purpose of earning exempt income. In this case, there was no direct expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income. Hence, only the indirect/administrative expenses were to be considered for working out the disallowance.
Shri S. Ganesh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22855 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
While deciding identical issue in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2009-10 The Tribunal accepting assessee's claim has allowed the deduction claimed as revenue expenditure. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding assessee's appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11 In the orders referred to above. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we allow assessee's claim of deduction. Resultantly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Consequently, the depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer on the expenditure claimed is also reversed.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-7 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22853 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As is discernible from the assessment order for A.Y 2013-14, the A.O had disallowed 50% of the assessee's claim for car depreciation and car expenses primarily for the reason that he had not furnished any evidence with regard to maintenance of any log book. As the fact situation during the year under consideration in context of the aforesaid issue before us remains the same, therefore, after principally agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards claim for car depreciation and car expenses, we accept the alternative claim of the assessee and restrict the disallowance of car depreciation, car insurance expenses and car expenses to the extent of 50% of the claim raised by the assessee.
HARESH NATVARLAL SANGHAVI VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, THANE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22852 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A payment made by a company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder is treated by cl. (e) to be included in the expression dividend. Consequently, the effect of cl. (e) of s. 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression dividend by including certain payments which the company has made by way of a loan or advance or payments made on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER – 15 (3) (2) ; MUMBAI VERSUS M/S VRISA INFOTECH PVT. LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22851 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83957&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issue of allowability of deduction in respect of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health is squarely covered by the decision of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT AND DCIT Vs Maco Corporation (India) as considered the issue in regard to very same trust i.e. SGHPH and holds that prior to the date of donation under cancellation of registration has happened and there is absolutely no provision of withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii). Provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence no disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii).
M/S SPAN REALTORS VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2) , MAHARASHTRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22847 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83935&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee on learning about the fact that School of Human Genetics & Population Health was found to have indulged in ingenuine activities, had thus, in the return of income filed by him in compliance to Notice u/s 148, had in all fairness withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the Original return of income.
MR. SAMMY E. MAJOR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 17 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22846 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83936&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is undisputed fact that the assessee has been granted a valid registration u/s 12AA of the Act which has never been revoked by the revenue authorities. The registration has been granted post-insertion of proviso to Sec.2(15) obviously after looking into the object of the assessee.
NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS DCIT (E) -2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22845 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83937&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Upheld the orders of the lower authorities and had concluded that the assessee was having business connection and PE in India. We find that though the assessee had raised a ground of appeal assailing the observations of the DRP that the assessee had a PE in India, but then, during the course of the hearing of the appeal no contention was advanced by the ld. A.R to support his aforesaid claim.
SABRE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S ABACUS INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.) VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22843 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83940&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee was obligated to complete the construction of the housing project as per the approved plan and comply with the I.O.D conditions, and by no means could be permitted to construe the completion of the construction of buildings as completion of the housing project.
Harshvardhan Constructions Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22840 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Where a trust is carrying on its activities for the fulfilment of its aims and objectives which are of charitable in nature with no motive to earn profit and in the process, earns some profit, the same would not be hit by proviso to Section 2(15).
National Payments Corporation of India Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22825 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.