-
The recognition was valid from 01.04.2001, and which was available during this period. Assessee facility was approved by the competent authority i.e the Secretary DSIR, but there was no approval in form No. 3CM for the impugned Assessment year. From the settled legal position of the law by the various cases of High Courts as discussed what is relevant to decide eligibility for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) is existence of R&D facility and recognition of such facility by the competent authority.
ADVANCE ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES PVT., LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE – 1, THANE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21025 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81826&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation as envisaged under rule 46A(1). It is evident from the facts on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) on his own has neither made any enquiry nor has called for any evidences from the assessee. It is the assessee who, on his own, has furnished the additional evidences to explain the information contained in CIB/AIR report. Therefore, the procedure laid down in sub–rule (2) and (3) or rule 46A, has to be followed.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–19 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RAJENDRA S. BHATE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21020 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81830&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Loss arising to a US entity upon cancellation of shares held in its Indian wholly owned subsidiary pursuant to capital reduction during AY 2011-12 should be allowed as long-term capital loss eligible to be carried forward.
Carestream Health INC Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the facts of the present case, the assessee itself has removed the defect without being intimated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the original return of income cannot be treated as invalid as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to remove the defect within the time limit permitted by the Assessing Officer.
B.E. BILLIMORIA & CO. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21016 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81816&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee neither appeared before us, nor filed any details to prove that findings of fact recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect. We further noted that the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) is based on the recommendation of the Task force constituted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and also, the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT, in the case of Renisha Impex Pvt.Ltd.
DECENT DIA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 (4), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20968 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81709&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, there is no doubts with regard to the fact that the assessee has followed a consistent method of accounting for accounting project management expenses in the past, but due to changed circumstances, it has changed its method of accounting from a particular date and such changes was bonafide and need of the hour.
HIGHSTREET DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ITO-3 (1) (4) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20965 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81723&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A combined reading of the above provision of article 5(2)(l) read with related protocol clause clearly shows is that the service PE being triggered on account of rendition of services by a Swiss entity in India, or vice versa, can never make the assessee worse off so far as the tax liability in source jurisdiction is concerned. Unless the assessee has a lower tax liability on taxability of PE on net basis under article 7 vis-à-vis taxability of FTS on gross basis under article 12(2), the PE being triggered is in fact tax neutral. Nothing, therefore, turns in favour of the income tax department on account of service PE being triggered by the rendition of services.
AGT International GmbH Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As decided in own case AO is competent to compute the income of an assessee under a head of income, other than what was claimed by the assessee, of course, after marshalling the facts properly and furnishing proper reasons. Merely by computing the interest accrued as income of the assessee instead of non taxable as claimed,, the inter-se rights of the assessee under any other statutory framework does not get affected.
THE ITO-23 (1) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14 IL & FS FINANCIAL CENTRE, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81672&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Agreement between the assessee and its customers is for providing hosting and other ancillary services to the customers and not for the use of leasing any equipment. The data centre and the infrastructure therein used to provide these serves belongs to the assessee. The customers are not having physical control or possession over the servers and right to operate and manage this infrastructure/servers vest solely with the assessee.
RACKSPACE VERSUS DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -4 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20949 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81635&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that on the aspect of technical issue i.e. non-recording of objective satisfaction by the ld. AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee, we find that in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. Had categorically held that in the absence of said satisfaction as contemplated in Section 14A(2) / 14A(3) of the Act read with rule 8D(1) of the rules, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could be made by adopting the computation mechanism provided in rule 8D(2) of the rules.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI AND JT. CIT (OSD) -2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20938 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81608&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The income from sale of shares has to be treated as capital gains and not business income on the basis that the investment was in a single company and held for long term and hence, cannot be assessed as business income.
IL And Orix Trust Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20929 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The amount was received by the assessee only because of handing over the old flat for the purpose of re-development. Therefore, the amount of 53,50,500, received by the assessee is integrally connected with the transfer of his old flat to the developer for re- development. The amount has to be treated as income under the head Capital Gains.
Pradyot B. Borkar Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no dispute that assessee earned interest on deposit in Bank. Further, there is no dispute that the assessee is under the process of setting up of infrastructure facility of Expressway from Sikar to Bikaner. The assessee reduced the interest from its work-in- progress.
SHRI BIKANER HIGHWAY LTD. VERSUS ITO 14 (3) (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20926 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81583&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The substance of the restrictive covenants of the agreement is to restrict the assessee to associate in any manner whatsoever with anybody or person engaged or proposed to engage in the similar business. Therefore, this agreement in its plain reading cannot constitute to be related to termination of employment or to compensate the loss of salary due to termination of employment.
Shri Sunderraj Srinivasan Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20919 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since, the assessee has filed original return within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1), then any revised return filed, subsequently within the due date prescribed u/s 139(5) partaks, the nature of original return filed u/s 139(1) and consequently, the conditions prescribed u/s 139(3) of the Act, is fulfilled and accordingly, loss claimed shall be allowed to be carried forward under the relevant provision of the Act.
Marks & Spencer Reliance India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20918 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80
-
Extrapolation made by learned CIT(A) that the Trust shall not be entitled for deduction u/s. 24 of the Act in computation of income from house property is totally unsustainable in law. As a matter of fact, the proposition that income has to be computed as per provisions of the Act even in the case of Trust was approved in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) wherein capital expenditure for acquiring asset which was already shown as application of income was held to be eligible for depreciation which was denied by the Revenue.
SHANTARAM BHAT CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) -1, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20912 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the services rendered by the assessee under agreement comes under first limb of FTS, then the assesee is not correct in moving to the second limb of FTS, as per the above definition to argue that the services do not make available any technical knowledge, skill, process etc.
Aktiebolaget SKF Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee has entered into 2 separate agreement, both dated 31/12/1996, the copies of which have been placed on record. By virtue of agreement for purchase of software business undertaking, the assessee has acquired the undertaking for a consideration of ₹ 25 Crores. There is another agreement titled as non-compete agreement which restrict FIL to compete with assessee in development and sale of software for exports market for a period of 10 years.
ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS INDIA LTD) VERSUS ACIT (INV.) CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20907 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81541&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has claimed exempt LTCG by trading in shares of LTL. The details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been examined and inquired into by the AO. This is evident from the assessment order produced above and also from the documents available on record. One cannot miss the proposition that assessment made without inquiry is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
MOTILAL SALECHA HUF VERSUS PR. CIT-31, ROOM NO. 301, C-13 PRATYAKSHAKAR BAHVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20905 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assesee ex-parte for non appearance of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as in disposing of penalty appeals, when the quantum appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A).
BHARAT R. RUIA (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-47 MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81518&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.