-
Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured u/s.292B, Hence, the Assessment proceedings as well as the Assessment order itself are void ab initio.
Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22949 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the asset has entered into block of assets and depreciation has been allowed in the succeeding year, the WDV of such asset is to be accepted as sacrosanct and depreciation has to be allowed on the same.
Kay Jay Auto Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22948 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Sec.40A(2)(b) disallowance is deleted in respect of the interest-free deposit given by the assessee employer to the landlord for providing accommodation to the employee.
Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22947 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40A(2)
-
Revenues under the IDC agreement ought not to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as royalty under the Act and India-Singapore DTAA.
Edenred Pte Ltd. Vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since this Bench last assembled on June 15, 2020, the situation arising out of the pandemic is yet to improve. To serve the ends of justice, the interim order initially passed on March 26, 2020, shall stand extended till August 31, 2020.
Cleared Secured Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22945 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The stay already granted by the Tribunal deserves extension.
Infosys Ltd vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22944 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
As could be seen from the facts on record, identical addition of interest on interest free security deposit was made by the AO in assessee's own case in the assessment year 2012–13. When the dispute ultimately came up for consideration before the Tribunal The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties and relevant facts and materials on record, though, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer in computing interest on interest free security deposit received by the assessee, however, the quantum was reduced from 10% to 9%.
DEENA ASIT MEHTA VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22943 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84104&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The basis of denying the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act is on account of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Limited Wherein it was held that the assessee not having got the necessary approval from the appropriate authority under the statute, was not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. However, the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was modified in the Review Petition in the case of CIT v. Valiant Communications Ltd. wherein the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to consider the assessee's alternative claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act.
M/S. KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. MENON & PAI ADVOCATES VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (2) KOCHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22942 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84107&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 for escapement of income which was the returned income filed prior to issue of notice u/s 148 in the belated return and as well as in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and since the AO has accepted the said returned income and proceeded to make various other additions without issuing fresh notice u/s 147/148, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing issues other than the issues in respect of which the proceedings are initiated and reasons for the initiation of those proceedings cease to survive.
RAJ BALA, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, JOGINDER DAHIYA, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, VERSUS ITO, WARD-21 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22941 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84109&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal did not examine the nature of transaction and the issue as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the cause shown by the assessee to be a reasonable cause to be entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The decision, which has been referred to in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, does not relate to the assessee. Tribunal referred to the said decision and allowed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. We find that there is no discussion as to why those two decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case respectively dated 31.10.2013 and 22.7.2014 Could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
SRI. M. PALANI ADAICALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, PUDUCHERRY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22940 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83121&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue stake involved in the present case is much below the limit of rupees one crore for withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue, since the present case involved some audit objection because of exemption in the said Circular, the learned counsel for the Revenue press the appeal on merits.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS SMT. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22939 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondents while issuing the impugned certificate has placed detailed reasons on record. The petitioner had in its own application for grant of certificate of deduction of tax at source at NIL rate under Section 197 had mentioned the applicable rates as 2% and/or 10% during Financial Year 2020-21. She also states that the projected gross receipts during this Financial Year 2020-21 is projected to be 78% more than the preceding year according to the petitioner itself.
MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 NEW DELHI & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83124&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No remand report is required, for the reason that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is very clear from the records. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. VERSUS M/S. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22937 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84083&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The evidences need to be seen in their entirety as the burden of proving that the foreign assessee has a PE in India and consequently it has to be taxed on the business generated by such PE is initially on the Revenue. Such is the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ADIT vs E-funds IT Solutions Inc. In such a scenario, the question of taxability of service PE in India of the assessee company is answered in the negative. The evidences have also been gone into by the CIT(A), who has given detailed finding.
THE DDIT, CIRCLE-2 (2) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (ASIA) PTE. LTD., C/O-M. K. MANDAL AND ASSOCIATE, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22936 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84084&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On verification of the TDS certificate in Form no.16A, by Unity Infra Projects Ltd., learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded a finding of fact that such certificate shows labour charges. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), AO has not made any in–depth enquiry to ascertain the correctness of assessee's claim regarding the receipt of labour charges. By simply issuing a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Unity Infra Projects Ltd., the AO has finished his part of the job without pursuing the concerned party any further even after not receiving any reply.
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD–26 (2) (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS MOHD. IRSAD MOHD. SAMIULLAH ALAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22935 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the appellant acts as the central coordinator for all Damco entities across the globe. As a central coordinator, the appellant procures from various service providers viz. insurance, procurement of various product and information technology related support services etc. needed by Damco entities across the globe. The appellant enters into MSA with Damco operating entities and therefore, recovers the cost of procurement/provision from these entities. All these costs are only reimbursed to the appellant and there is no mark-up.
DAMCO INTERNATIONAL A/S, C/O. DAMCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22934 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts are very clear that the assessee filed return on 02.01.2013, which is beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139(1). In the return of income the assessee has declared loss consisting of business loss for the year and unabsorbed depreciation. As per the provision of section 139(3) to carry forward business loss u/s 72(1), assessee should have filed its return of income in time allowed u/s 139(1).
ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI VERSUS NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22933 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) rendered a factual finding that the assessee has assigned separate values for the immovables consisting of land and building and movables consisting of furnitures and fixtures, plant and machinery, patents, net current assets and therefore, concluded that the consideration for transfer cannot be called as a lump sum consideration. It was decided that, the sale effected by the assessee does not constitute slump sale as per Section 2(42C) of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 50B will not be applicable.
M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE VI (1) CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22932 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83113&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reimbursement of cost cannot be taxable in India being devoid of any profit element/income.
Damco International Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International taxation)-2(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22931 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee is allowed to claim depreciation on software developed to maintain national IT website.
Taxman Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22930 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.