-
Since assessee itself had deducted TDS u/s. 194IA and therefore, the assessee being a deductor cannot plead inapplicability of the aforesaid provision.
Cornerview Construction & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19579 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 234E
-
Even if the property is not transferred, then there is a right created by the “Land Development Control Rules, 1991” [DCR] attached with the land embedded in it.
State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-op Hsg. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19563 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 92C/ Rule 10B: If the TPO is not satisfied with the assessee's method of benchmarking royalty payments, he should independently benchmark the ALP by adopting any one of the prescribed methods. He cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis. TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of royalty and not the CUP method. If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP
ACIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19539 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92C
-
Assessee nowhere fall within the definition of the Co-operative Bank. The assessee is not a recognized bank in view of the provision of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). There is a difference between the Co-operative bank and in the Credit Co-operative Society. If the Assessee is not in the banking business then in the said circumstances, no doubt the assessee is entitled to raise the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act.
ITO-21 (2) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19535 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76081&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of this fact that the assessee has furnished the relevant documents u/s 92D(3) r.w.r. 10D of the Act. The penalty is not laviable specifically on the facts and circumstances when the assessee submitted all the necessary/relevant information to the TPO which was not acceptable if any by TPO.
DCIT-19 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DAUJI AND CO., MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19534 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that money received in the form of preference share capital has come through FDI route with the proper approval of FIPB and RBI by filing requisite statutory forms and complying with the requisite conditions prescribed thereon.
ITO-15 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. LUXORA REALTORS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19533 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76078&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Gem grading services provided by GIA India Lab to Indian affiliate will not be regarded as JV-arrangement. Rejects the constitutional plea of PE.
Gemological Institute of America, Inc Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Allowed Essar Teleholdings' appeal, holding sale of CCDs to related concern which resulted in a STCL of Rs 69.36 crores could not be construed as a colorable device and the loss was a genuine loss.
M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus F&O Loss: Unusual & sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers was with an intention to evade taxes. In large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications. Thus, client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulations & shall go out of the protection granted by the circulars of NSE/SEBI (Rakesh Gupta 405 ITR 213 (P&H) & Ninja Securities followed)
Time Media & Entertainment LLP vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19497 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus Purchases: The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases. The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases (PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bom HC) followed
V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19496 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 143(1)
-
ITAT - Upheld addition as fictitious loss being inflicted by manipulative client code modification by treating F&O loss as bogus loss.
Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19474 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 131(1A)
-
ITAT - Deduction u/s 10AA - The onus is on AO to prove the presence of any arrangement between the parties which have resulted in extraordinary profits to the eligible unit. The AO could have, at least, brought variation in price of supply of commodity from different units on record to establish collusion/arrangement. The onus remains undischarged except for presence of suspicious circumstances.
M/S. SJR COMMODITIES AND CONSULTANCIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 8 (3) (2) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19471 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Management advisory services rendered by a singapore company to its Indian group company and management fee received by Singapore company therein cannot be taxed in India as Fees for Technical Services under Singapore DTAA.
Dimension Data Asia Pecific Pte. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19454 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since referral fees paid to US concern by assessee during AY 2012-13, neither FTS under Income-tax Act nor Fees for Included Services (FIS) under India-US DTAA. Therefore not taxable.
Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19446 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9
-
Since once the royalty was held to be at arm's length no further amount could be attributable. Therefore quashes AO's 'FTS / royalty' characterization of Dutch Co.'s income citing variance with APA.
Spencer Stuart International BV Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19434 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)
-
Discount earned on Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds [FCCBs] buyback by assessee co. is not a revenue reciept u/s. 28(iv).
Pidilite Industries Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19427 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 28(iv)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty: Payment for 'bandwith services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the assessee only has access to services and not to any equipment. The assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services. All infrastructure & process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of the service provider and was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services
DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19413 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section9(1)(vi)
-
Disallowance of alleged bogus expenses in respect of professional charges debited to P&L account by assessee co. [engaged in IT System Audit and Allied Consultancy Services] for AY 2009-10 is deleted.
AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19403 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As the free services provided by the dealers to the ultimate customers was in discharge of the obligation cast upon the assessee-company towards the customers to provide such services, the payments were liable for TDS u/s. 194C, being in the nature of consideration pursuant to a contract.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19402 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194C
-
Exemption provisions should be interpreted strictly and in case ambiguity, benefit of such ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue.
Lok Housing & Construction Ltd Vs DCIT (OSD)-8(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19377 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IB(10)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.