-
The principles of natural justice have undergone a sea change. The earlier view that even a small violation would result in the order being rendered a nullity is not correct. Some real prejudice must be caused to the complainant by the refusal to follow natural justice. The prejudice must not merely be the apprehension of a litigant. No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle (All imp judgements referred)
State Of U.P vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24735 (SC)
-
Interpretation of statutes & DTAAs: The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. When a new rule in place of an old rule is substituted, the old one is never intended to keep alive and the substitution has the effect of deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. Though Notification dated 18.07.2005 (which substitutes paragraph 12 of Article 12 of the DTAA to provide for levy of tax on the royalties or fees for technical services at a rate not exceeding 10%) issued u/s 90 came into force with effect from 01.08.2005, it applies to the entire fiscal year
DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24734 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Delay of the respondent in filing a writ petition by itself should not defeat the claim unless the position of the State has been so altered that it cannot be retracted on account of a lapse of time or the inaction of the writ petitioner.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Brahmputra Mettalics Ltd. Ranchi & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24727 (SC)
-
The assessee has incurred an expenditure which gives him enduring benefit, therefore, the same has to be treated as capital expenditure.
M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Vs THE ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24726 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
If amenities works were actually been undertaken by the builder as per amenities agreement, the same would certainly need to be included in the cost of acquisition.
Mrs. Rashmi Mahendra Dhanani Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24725 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As per Sec. 80A(5) ,what is required to be seen is whether the assessee has made a claim in the return of income filed for the relevant year or not, even though such return is not filed within due date.
The Asst. CIT Vs M/s. DAEE Coop T&C Society
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24724 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 80P
-
Reimbursement of expense cannot be treated as income.
H. Binita Bali Singha Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24723 (ITAT-GAUHATI)
-
If title of an immovable property stands in the name of two persons, it evidences both as co-owners title of the immovable property which is decisive of ownership and not the understanding outside the records which both the parties may have entered into.
Perviz Sarosh Batliwala Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24722 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
The interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the Act on enhanced compensation is still a part of compensation and is a capital receipt taxable under the head capital gains.
Ram Kishan Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24721 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessee has no right to sell any unit, the godown right was embedded in the cost of the units developed which were sold by SNCML. Section 45(2) which relates to capital gain arising out of conversion of capital asset into stock-in- trade requires that in order to be chargeable to tax, there has to be a transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act and capital gain shall be brought to tax in the year in which the stock-in-trade has been sold.
ITO Vs M/s Kidderpore Holdings Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24719 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
We see no need to address the broader issue of whether or not tax is deductible from the payments made by the assessee to Facebook Ireland Limited for the advertisements placed on Facebook, and whether or not income embedded in such payments in taxable in India.
Interactive Avenues Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
On a plain reading of clause (c) of Section 80IB(10) of the IT Act, it is evident that the same does not exclude the principle of proportionality in any manner.
M/s. Models Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24711 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 80IB(10)
-
In the instant case, the Revenue failed to specify any defects in the recasted books and its addition of Rs. 50 Lac to the income, on the basis of possible leakage of revenues, is clearly ad hoc and cannot be legally sustained under Sec. 145(3).
The DCIT Vs M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24710 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Revenue, on suspecting unaccounted cash receipts ought to have referred cost of construction to DVO and taxed the difference u/s 69C.
DCIT Vs Paruchuru Satish Kumar (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24703 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 132(4)
-
Explanation cannot defeat the intention and purpose of a section and as such the application of Explanation 3 will have to be in accordance with checks and balances which are applicable at the time of issuance of notice under section 148.
INS Finance & Investment P. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24702 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Revenue passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) and initiated criminal proceedings u/s 276C(2) on the demand arising out of CIT(A) order.
HEMAL MANUBHAI PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24701 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Assessee is directed to file before AO, the amount of dividend paid, copy of agreement and other relevant documents, as required by AO.
DCIT Vs Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24700 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
It is in the interest of justice to have a common trial for all three complaints.
Paraminder Singh Kalra Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24688 (HC-DELHI)
-
It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration.
M/s. Nannusamy Mohan(HUF) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24686 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Cash basis for taxing FTS under India-Germany DTAA is permitted.
M/s. ABB AG Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24685 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.