-
There is no obligation in law for deduction of tax at source on payments made for reimbursement of costs incurred by a non-resident enterprise and therefore the amount paid by the assessee was not amenable to witholding u/s 195.
Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd Vs The Director Of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24803 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
This plea of prospective application of clause (x) in Section 56(2) would not come to the aid and assistance of the assessee because the assessee has been held to be a representative assessee and not an association of persons.
The Commissioner of Income tax Vs Shriram Ownership Trust
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24802 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
Scope of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be enlarged and read and in the same context of requisition proceedings u/s 132A.
Sh. Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui Mohalla Pirzadan Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24801 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
To attract the offence of Sec. 278 there must be material that the accused has instigated or invited another to commit offence.
The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Vs Smt.Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram, Karti P.Chidambaram
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24798 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Merely because the owner of the premises searched was not the person named in the WoA issued under Sec. 132(1) does not imply that the search was conducted under Sec. 132(1A).
SHILPA CHOWDHARY Vs PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)-I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24797 (HC-DELHI)
-
Since the assessee's declaration was accepted and Nil tax payable was determined. Therefore, as per Sec. 4(3) of the said act, assessee is required to withdraw the appeal.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24780 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It is for the department to establish that the assessee has not made software exports or prove that the information furnished by the assessee is false or incorrect.
M/s First Tek Private Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24779 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 10A
-
If sum advanced by the company is set-off against DDT paid dividend then such advance cannot be considered as deemed dividend as it would lead to double taxation.
Smt. Sushma Bansal Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24778 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 2(22(e)
-
Though no development activity was undertaken as confirmed by Revenue, the development agreement was not cancelled and possession of property was not handed over to assesse.
Santosh Kumar Subbani Vs Income-tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24777 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case failing which CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
Numex Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24776 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
If the position is debatable and not patent and clear, then resort to section 254 (2) of the Act does not appear to be justified and called for. On debatable issues, the Tribunal cannot review its own order.
The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gufic Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24775 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 254(2)
-
Assessee had been using the mark Redington since 1993 and even obtained a Certificate of Registration of the trademark in its name with effect from Feb 2000, while the AE was established only in 2005 and there was no documentary evidence to prove that the AE became the owner of the Trademark.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Redington (India) Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24768 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If infraction of procedural provision does not provide for any consequences, such a provision has to be construed as directory.
Wipro Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24767 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 10B
-
HI was economically dependent on HC as HC's business was dependent on installation of equipments by HI which were supplied by HC and that HI could not bid on its own as it did not supply equipments.
M/s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd Vs The Additional D.I.T International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24766 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Although M/s KPL share price were being jacked up by some people but it can also not be presumed that everyone claiming LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. KPL has been participant in this conspiracy to make windfall gain/loss.
Sunil Kumar Agarwal (HUF) Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24765 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Merely because the claim of expenditure made by the Assessee is found to be a wrong claim and is disallowed, it does not per se attract imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
Rattha Citadines Boulevard Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24758 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1) (c)
-
Section 56(2)(viib) is applicable on sums received from Residents only.
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24757 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the cash did not pass at any stage and since neither the respective parties received any cash nor paid any cash, there was no real credit of cash in the cash book and the question of inclusion of the amount of the entry as unexplained cash credit could not arise.
ITO Vs M/s Josan Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24756 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
Shares held for more than a month and less than a year should be treated as investment and taxed as STCG, whereas income from shares held for less than a month should be treated as profit from business.
Sunilkumar Somitra Singh Dangi Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24749 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
The DZ Bank AG and DZ Bank India Representative Office are only one taxable unit, that the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the same assessee twice- once under one article of the treaty i.e. Article 11, and then under another article of the treaty, i.e. Article 7.
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.