-
In absence of there being some enabling provision allowing AO to change the method of valuation, the choice of method adopted by the assessee cannot be disturbed.
TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24857 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Given the considerate approach adopted by the field authorities, there is no need to pass a stay order in this case.
Grasim Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24846 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no estoppel against law if the assessee proves that any transaction does not belong to it, then no addition is called for acceptance of any addition, which is against law, will not bar the assessee from contesting the same.
M/s Veerabhadrappa Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24845 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
All appointments prior to Feb 12, 2020 would be governed by the parent statutes and rules while the Tribunal Rules 2020 with the modifications suggested by SC would apply to all appointments made after Feb 12, 2020.
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24844 (SC)
-
The exclusion clause, under article 12(4), covers only payments to to any individual for independent personal services referred to in article 14.
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24831 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The question of validity of rectification proceedings goes to the root of the matter and thus, CIT(A) is incorrect in holding the same as general in nature.
M/s. ETS Lindgren Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24830 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Inspite of maintaining separate accounts for each unit, still assessee did not book any expenditure towards partner's remuneration in the Jammu unit, thus, raising question on the correctness of the profit calculated for Jammu unit that needs to be corrected.
M/s. Accent Pharma Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24829 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 80-IB
-
Since Revenue was not timely informed about merger, therefore assessment of non-existent company is curable.
Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24828 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
As per amended provisions of section 115BBE(2) made by Finance Act, 2016, set off of any loss against deemed income under sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D could not be applied retrospectively.
M/s. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24827 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 115BBE
-
The deduction of interest is allowable irrespective of whether the property under question is residential or commercial.
M/s. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24826 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 24(b)
-
Assessees have miserably failed to establish the capacity of the source and the genuineness of the transaction.
SADIQ SHEIKH Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24825 (SC) · Section 68
-
Manufacturing or processing means transforming the original product into a commercially viable end product, distinct and different from the original product.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ramacanta Velingkar Minerals
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24824 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 10B
-
The ten year period u/s 10B would begin from the AY in which assessee first claimed the deduction.
Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors (I) Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24823 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 10B
-
Section 40(a)(i) is a restriction on deductibility of expenses u/s 30 to 38. If the related expenditure is not claimed as a deduction u/s 30 to 38, this disallowance cannot be pressed into service at all. As the assessee is an advertisement agency and advertisements are placed by the assessee on behalf of its clients, there is ordinarily no occasion to claim the costs of advertisements as deduction in computation of its business income. The revenues, in the case of advertisement agencies, consist of only the commission received in respect of the advertisements so placed
Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24822 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
(i) A representative office of a foreign enterprise is not a taxable unit. The foreign enterprise is the taxable unit. A return of income filed in the name of the representative office, with the PAN of the enterprise, offering only the income of the representative office & excluding the other Indian income of the enterprise is not proper. However, as the error is inadvertent and without any consequences in terms of loss of revenue, a pragmatic approach must be adopted and the assessee should not be subjected to avoidable inconvenience (ii) As regards the taxability of interest income under the India-Germany DTAA, as the debt claim in question was not "effectively connected" to the alleged PE, the exclusion article 11(5) was not triggered and the taxability under article 7 does not come into play (Entire law discussed in detail)
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24821 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Rejection of assessee's explanation and making additions will not automatically result in interpreting the same as furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Shri Babuji Jacob Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24820 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Additions in the hands of assessee's group companies of the same amount, does not make it double taxation in the hands of the present assesse.
DCIT Vs Paramount Residency Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24819 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the assessee bank is required to be treated an Indian company for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be open to us to hold that it will not be treated as a company for the purposes of Section 115JB.
Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
A building legally comes into existence only on issuance of an occupancy certificate.
Brigade Enterprises Ltd Vs The Add. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24811 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 22
-
Since the assessee's business is wound up during the AY in question, situation of carry forward of loss u/s 70(1) does not arise and thus, the loss incurred by the assessee cannot be disallowed by misconstruing the relevant provisions.
M/s.Share Aids Private Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (OSD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24810 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 41(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.