-
As could be seen from the facts discussed above, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for different quarters of the financial year 2009–10 due to delay in filing of TDS statements. However, while deciding assessee’s appeals for the first three quarters of the financial year 2009–10, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench, we delete the penalty imposed.
SHRI RAVIRAJ RELAMPADDU VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE, THANE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22297 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82508&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the expenses for holding this event is in connection with business in India, it is only a natural corollary thereto that income from participation, in this event, to a non-resident has a business connection in India.
Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22275 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no provision therein to eliminate the dividend income from specified foreign company before setting off of business loss unlike Sections 115BBE & 115BBDA wherein a specific restriction is imposed on setting off of any loss.
Tata Motors Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22263 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 115BBD
-
Proviso is aimed at mitigating the hardship or the mischief which was caused to the taxpayer on the invocation of deeming provisions of Sec.43CA where there is marginal variation upto 5% and hence the proviso would take retrospective effect.
M/ s. Faber Construction Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22262 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA
-
Assessee has purchased Nicorandil chemical from its associate enterprises @ 20,000 per Kg, whereas the same chemical are sold in the domestic market for lesser value. We observed from the submission made by Ld. AR that the assessee has purchased chemical from the associate enterprises in order to export the same and assessee has instructed the associate enterprises to supply the quality as per the specification of the buyers and accordingly associate enterprises has supplied the chemical following the above said specification.
M/S NIVEDITA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT 10 (3) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22261 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82387&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As complete details/ particulars were available before the AO in regard to this transaction of sale of sales and conversion of its investment into stock-in-trade. In view of the explanation of the assessee that there has been an inadvertent mistake/ error in filing the return of income and that also occurred entirely on accountant oversite of the chartered accountant while computing income which was required to be computed after considering the provisions of section 45A(2) of the Act.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12 (1) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S ASP INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22260 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82388&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the language used in provisions of section 71(2A) and the explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2004, it is very clear that any losses under the head income from business or profession cannot be allowed to set off against income assessable under the head salaries. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. AO, as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were right in disallowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowances against income under the head salaries.
HARBANS SINGH BAWA VERSUS ACIT-17 (1), MUMBAI, DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE ACIT-17 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22259 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82392&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not necessary for the assessee to engage in taking accommodate entry to the value of ₹ 40 lakhs in order to reduce the eligible profit. Considering the volume of the business of the assessee, the disallowance made by the AO has no impact on the profit nor it is necessary for the assessee to reduce any profit, which is eligible to be claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.
M/S UNITY INFRA PROJECTS LTD., VERSUS DCIT CC – 8 (2), MUMBAI AND VICE VERSA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22257 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82396&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue has rested merely by doubting the genuineness of the arrangement, without probing the facts further. What is the total area, as well as its composition/profile? How many family members, besides the assessee (the owner) and the two tenants, are residing thereat? Has the area let been specified, allowing private space (a separate bedroom each) to son and daughter, who would in any case be also provided access to or user of the common area specified or not so in the agreement/s, viz. kitchen, balcony, living area, bathrooms, etc.
MD. HUSSAIN HABIB PATHAN VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22256 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82397&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once there is a categorical finding in this regard, the invocation of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) fails. Accordingly we hold that that the disallowance of depreciation by invocation of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) in this regard fails on account of lack of jurisdiction.
M/S PIK STUDIOS P. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PENS P. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-8 (2) /INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8 (2) MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22240 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82321&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the predecessor could not have claimed depreciation on the amount of trademark presented by revaluation reserve, by virtue of the 5th proviso to Sec. 32(1), depreciation to that extent is also not available in the hands of the assessee company also.
PIK Studios P. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 32(1)
-
By entering into an option agreement, the assessee had renounced its right to market unit No.1 and 2 for a period of 9 months from the date of the option agreement and, because of covenant by way of an option agreement with the party and hence, any amount received in pursuance of said agreement is in the nature of compensation which is assessable under the head income from other sources as rightly considered by the assesse.
Redwood IT Services P. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21232 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Sec.80-IA(4) certainly does not give an impression that the assessee has to do the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility all by itself without engaging any contractor.
Rajahmundry Expressway Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21229 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IA
-
As obvious that vice president manufacturing was having sufficient knowledge and experience of the technology and its standards used by the assessee in US. The Vice President was not an ordinary engineer but was having sufficient experience, exposure and knowledge about the technology of the assessee and was also having expertise to ensure the implementation of the standards of the assessee in India.
GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3 (1). MUMBAI, DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIOAL TAXATION) - 3 (1).
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21219 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82301&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A genuine arrangement cannot be disregarded as the same results or operates to minimize the assessee's tax liability.
Md. Hussain Habib Pathan Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21213 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the instant case, the provisions of chapter X have been invoked to alter an expenditure, namely the mobilisation and demobilisation charges paid for a qualifying ship, an item which has no bearing on the income as computed under Chapter XIIG and accordingly the provisions of Chapter X have no application in computing the income of the assessee chargeable to tax as per Chapter XII-G of the Act.
ESSAR SHIPPING LTD. VERSUS A.C.I.T. -5 (1) (2), MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21209 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Just because there is abnormal increase in the cost, does not mean that assessee has not incurred this expenditure for its business. Service fee expended by the assessee is revenue in nature, allowable u/s 37.
Phillip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21199 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37
-
S. 90(3): The law laid down in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) that once an income of an Indian assessee is taxable in the treaty partner source jurisdiction under a treaty provision, the same cannot be included in its total income taxable in India as well i.e. the residence jurisdiction, is no longer good law in view of s. 90(3) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2004 read with Notification no. 91 of 2008 dated 28.08.2008. The substitution of s. 90 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 does not affect the validity of the said Notification. The mere amendment or substitution of a section does not affect the validity of notifications, circulars and instructions issued therein (all imp judgements referred).
Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21198 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 90(3)
-
S. 92A(2): The law in Diageo India Pvt Ltd 47 SOT 252 that the definition of "Associated Enterprises" in section 92A(1)(a) & (b) is the basic rule which is unaffected by the specific instances referred to in s. 92A(2) is not good law in view of the amendment by the FA 2002 and CBDT Circular No. 8 dated 27.08.2008. The correct law as held in Veer Gems 95 taxmann.16 (Guj) is that S. 92A(2) restricts the scope of S. 92A(1) and it is only when the criterion specified in sub section (2) is satisfied, two enterprises can be treated as associated enterprises. Judgements of non jurisdictional High Courts are binding on the Tribunal
Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21196 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92A(2)
-
As the term forming part of participation had been used in context of a company which is resident of either of the Contracting State, and the term resident is a defined term, hence there was no requirement on the part of the A.O for reference to the domestic law.
Sofina S.A. vs. The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21182 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.