-
Assessment has been framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, without obtaining the valid approval from the joint Commissioner of income tax. Accordingly, such assessment is not valid under the provisions of law. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunrise Finlease. Revenue has not brought anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the assessee.
M/S OM KIRTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22889 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84014&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the hands of the firm, the firm has not accepted the ITAT's decision and has contested in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which is pending now . In such facts and circumstances, the Ld CIT(A) 's decision since the issue under consideration has not reached finality in the apex court, of the considered opinion that as of now, in view of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai's decision of the confirmation of addition of ₹ 4.54 Crores.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2) , CHENNAI. VERSUS SHRI. VELAYUTHAMSUNDARAMOORTHY, SHRI. T. PADMAKUMAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22888 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84019&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Primary function of the assessee is to provide business process outsourcing services (BPO), consisting of inbound customer services, outbound collections, transaction processing, financing and accounting services, knowledge management of complex technologies, telemarketing and invoice processing thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be selected from final list.
M/S. TELEPERFORMENCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS “INTEL GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED”) VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22887 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84021&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee has sold the wind mills and claimed it as a separate undertaking. Separate undertaking is one which can be separated from the business unit and both the business units of the assessee should be run separately, independent of each and they should not be dependent on each other.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3 (1) VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS M/S DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22886 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84022&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Scrap sold by the railway was certainly not usable due to its breakage or wear and tear and it was also subjected to TCS for which the assessee has not raised any objection. Once the assessee has accepted the goods purchased from the railway as scrap and allowed the TCS then the resale of the same goods by the assessee will not part take a different character. In view of the undisputed fact that what was purchased by the assessee is scarp subjected to TCS then the resale of the same material is also be treated as scrap and there is no scope of re-classification of the these goods at the time of sale. No merits or substance in the contention of the assessee.
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22885 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84024&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Thus, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.
SAVITA KAPILA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI MOHINDER PAUL KAPILA Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22884 (HC-DELHI)
-
Appeal filed by the revenue within currency of the sub-section 2A of Section 253 of the Act, is valid.
Firemenich Aromatics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22883 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 253A
-
Once our Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has expressed a view, it cannot be open for us to be swayed by a contrary view expressed by any other Hon'ble High Court.
IMS AG Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22882 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In none of cases referred by learned counsel of the assessee the exposition is that when there is absolute finding of nonexistence of the share applicant the amount of share application money should be accepted as genuine.
Akansha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22881 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
The giving up of a right of specific performance by the assessee to get conveyance of immovable property in lieu of receiving consideration, results in the extinguishment of the right in property, thereby attracting the rigor of s. 2(14) r/w s. 2(47).
Shri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22880 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
In the very absence of the possession of the property in question having been delivered to the assessee by the builder/developer, there could have been no occasion for computing the ALV of the same within the meaning of Sec. 23.
Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22879 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 23
-
Once the AO has himself not suggested that the impugned sums have been in fact accrued or arisen to them department's impugned action adding the trust's balance in these two taxpayers' hands does not deserve to be concurred with.
Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22878 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Interest on saving bank account of the members is business income and cannot be termed as income from other sources as it has direct nexus of this income with the activity of business of providing credit facilities to its members who are banks.
The Bharat Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22877 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80P
-
The conduct of the assessee, actual facts of each case and the surrounding circumstances are to be examined, on merits, and then a call is to be taken about as to whether the explanation of the assessee merits acceptance or not.
Renu T Tharani Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - When interest was allowed as a deduction while computing income under the head 'Income from house property', “it would not be eligible to once again claim deduction of such interest in the garb of cost of acquisition of the property u/s 48 while computing the income under the head Capital gains at the time of sale of the property
M/s Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22869 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 24(b)
-
For the taxability of service PE, the expenses of salary cost needs to be deducted from the business income generated by the PE in India, which in the present case would be NIL.
The DDIT Vs M/s. Yum! Restaurants (Asia) Pte. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22862 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is well settled in law that the tribunal is a fact finding authority and a decision on the facts of the tribunal can be gone into by the high court only if a question has been referred to it, which says that the finding of the tribunal is perverse.
SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY Vs CIT, DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22861 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 45
-
Reasons recorded by the AO that the assessee company received share capital from the entry operator proved to be incorrect based on the facts. Attributing the entry of ₹ 7,00,000 /- to the share capital of the company by the AO to the increased share capital of ₹ 99,00,000 /- found to be incorrect based on the details of the share capital received by the company from the five entities.
ADARSH FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., C/O M/S RADHESHYAM SHARMA AND CO. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22860 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83980&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Although both the parties i.e the assessee and the purchaser had executed a deed of correction wherein they had mentioned that the value of the property as per ready reckoner rate was ₹ 4,53,00,690/-, but then, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that there is no material available on record from where it could be gathered that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority at ₹ 5,53,35,670/- had been substituted by the aforesaid ready reckoner rate of ₹ 4,53,00,690/-. In sum and substance, there is nothing discernible from the records which would reveal that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority had been revised at ₹ 4,53,00,690/-.
M/S SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, MUMBAI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2 (3) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22859 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83982&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The undisputed fact is that this is not the first year of business of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the subsidiary companies of the assessee are also engaged in the same business of production, generation, transmission and distribution and supply of electricity.
M/S ACB [INDIA] POWER LTD. VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE – 1 (2) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22858 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83983&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.