-
ITAT - Payment to Singapore sister concern for providing standard bandwith services is not 'royalty' under India-Singapore DTAA.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19362 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the consideration under the service agreement cannot be taxed as FIS, therefore the receipt cannot be treated as royalty as there is no transfer of process or formula.
The Nielsen Company (US) LLC Vs DCIT (IT) - 4(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19361 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since surrendering of allotment of flat has to be considered as a right in property which is a capital asset, therefore assessee can claim Sec. 54 benefit against capital gain arising from surrender of such right.
Ashwin. S. Bhalekar Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19355 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54
-
In case of short TDS, no Sec.40(a)(ia) expense disallowance.
Hindustan Thompson Associates Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19339 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
The cost of acquisition of know- how under development being a self-generated asset is not ascertainable, and hence, no chargeable capital gains would arise.
Bharat Serums And Vaccines Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Valuation - property in question cannot be valued as has been directed by the CIT in view of the litigations underway and also the fact that the property is in the possession of the tenants.
WHITE ROSE HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO-13 (3) (2), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19333 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75432&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Rental income derived from properties held as stock in trade cannot be assessed as income from house property.
Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19320 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Membership fees paid by the assessee for membership of Mumbai Cricket Association for a third person u/s 37(1) as assessee failed to prove that expenses were incurred wholly & exclusively for the purpose of business is disallowed.
Top Class Capital Markets Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19319 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee's claim for Sec. 80IA benefit on interest on loans/advances to employees citing absence of direct nexus with industrial undertaking is rejected.
The Tata Power Company Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19311 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Payment made by Indian subsidiary to assessee (the Netherlands company) for rendering management services is not FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA since 'managerial services' are outside purview of FTS definition under DTAA.
Hyva Holding B.V Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19249 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
With a view to overcome the same, clause (i) was added to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB with retrospective effect from AY 2001-02 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which provided that the Book Profits should be increased by the amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset.
Bobcards Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19244 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Accommodation entries - Presumption of Section 132(4A) stood against the assessee and complete onus to negate the same was on assessee which has remain undischarged - Addition justified.
RAJENDRA P. JAIN VERSUS DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19214 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74995&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Non-consideration of binding judicial precedent of High Court would constitute mistake apparent from record u/s 254.
M/S. AKM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-5 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19122 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Capital-gains - Date on letter of allotment of rights in property is relevant date for determining period of holding of the property and not date on sale agreement.
Shri Keyur Hemant Shah Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18044 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Provisions for future expenses relating Lump Sum Turnkey Projects is allowable as reversal of expenditure in future could not deprive the assessee to claim legitimate business expenditure.
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-10(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18043 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - No prima facie enquiry was conducted by the AO, as contemplated u/s 170 of the Act, for substitution of successor-in-interest, therefore assessment on non-existent entity quashed.
UTV Software Communications Ltd Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 45(4): The revaluation of asset being land held by the partnership firm which results into enhancement of value of asset and this enhanced amount credited in capital account of partners and when a retiring partner takes amount in his capital account including enhanced value of asset, it does not give rise to Capital Gain under section 45(4) r.w. Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act
D.S. Corporation vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17973 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 45(4)
-
ITAT - Date of acquisition for computation of LTCG - Since allotment is not a conditional allotment and do not envisages cancellation of the allotted property, then the assessee has acquired right in a specific property on date of allotment - Subsequently, agreement of sale has been executed by the builder in assessee’s favor which was nothing but mere improvement in assessee’s existing rights to acquire a specific property and part & parcel of the same transaction.
ACIT-25 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17972 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=73324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The new system of e-filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) were introduced by Revenue only wef 01.03.2016 and the assessee filed his appeal before learned CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 manually but the said appeal was filed within time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act.
MR. UMESH A MISHRA VERSUS ITO 10 (3) (3) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16877 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71102&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Addition u/s 14A - The onus was on AO to reject the assessee’s computations and record a finding as to how those computations were not satisfactory. The failure to do so oust the jurisdiction of AO to apply Rule 8D.
PURVAG COMMODITIES & DERIVAT IVES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT-10 (3) (2), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16870 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=71082&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.