-
When there is an issue of bonus shares, the money remains with the company and nothing comes to the shareholders as there is no transfer of the property and the provisions of Sec.56(2) (vii)(c) are not attracted.
The DCIT Vs DR. RANJAN PAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24906 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
Remuneration and interest received from a firm, to the extent eligible u/s 40(b), would be considered as profits and gains from business or profession of the recipient- partner, however that by itself would not translate such remuneration and interest, to gross receipts or turnover of business independently carried on by the partner.
Mr.Anandkumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24905 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 44AD
-
It is settled law that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay as the intent of the court is always to promote substantial justice.
HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24904 (HC-DELHI)
-
Provisions of sec. 17(2)(iii) would not be applicable to grant of interest free loan by the company to its director.
Mr. J.S. Gujral Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24903 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 17(2)(iii)
-
Even if the investments were violative of Sec.11(5), exemption u/s 11 could be denied only with respect to income arising therefrom i.e. dividend, which was anyway exempt u/s 10(34), and hence it was completely tax neutral exercise not causing any prejudice to the Revenue.
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the original assessment order was quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice, the seized material which was the basis of the original assessment order, can be the basis for reopening assessment under Sec. 147 and 148.
Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24896 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As per Sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Act, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order u/s.263 of the Act, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s.263 of the Act is passed by the Commissioner.
M/s. Ejaz Tannin Company Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24880 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
When the order passed under section 263 of the Act has lost its existence by virtue of the order of the Tribunal, all proceedings consequent to the order passed under section 263 of the Act would automatically become invalid.
Pfizer Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24879 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee had acquired a capital asset in the form of tenancy rights and its transfer resulted in capital gain.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Shikha Roy
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24878 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases.
Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The appellate authorities did not follow Rule 28AA, even after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellate authority to provide the TDS computation as per the rule, thus, making the decision-making process in the present case contrary to law.
MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24876 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264
-
Where sufficient cause for non- appearance is shown later, ITAT is obligated to consider the same and make an order setting aside the ex- parte order, irrespective of the fact that the final order was decided on merits.
M/S KALRA PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED. Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24875 (HC-DELHI)
-
As the assessee has gifted the share, there is no accrual of any revenue to the assesse there is not any inflow of cash, receivables or other consideration, there is no question of accrual of any consideration to the assesse.
Manjula Finance Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24867 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Share application as transferred/ assigned would constitute capital asset u/s 2(14).
DCIT Vs M/s Morarjee Realities Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24866 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the instant case, Revenue failed to record any satisfaction with regard to genuineness of the claim of the assessee before invoking the powers u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and in the absence of recording such satisfaction, Rule 8D could not have been invoked.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24865 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 37
-
The AO's refusal to grant foreign tax credit under article 23(2) of India Japan DTAA on the ground that the assessee's income (legal fees) was not taxable in Japan under Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) & that the taxes were wrongly withheld in Japan is not justified. The income could have been taxed under Article 12 (Fees for Technical Services). Even otherwise, one has to take a judicious call as to whether the view adopted by the source jurisdiction of taxing the income is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction. The view of the treaty partner should be adopted unless it is wholly unreasonable or manifestly erroneous
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24862 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
(i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.
Bank of India vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24861 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
(i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.
Bank of India vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24860 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The observation made by ITAT on the doctrine of merger would not hold good.
GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF) Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24859 (SC)
-
Purpose of deduction of tax at source is not to collect a sum which is not a tax levied under the Act, it is to facilitate the collection of tax lawfully leviable under the Act.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24858 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 195
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.