-
No reference to any cess was made by the legislature in Sec.40(a)(ii) and thus, deduction for the same was allowable.
M/s. Philips India Limited. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22837 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - A Trust is eligible to carry forward deficit of current year to be set off against expenditure of subsequent year.
Income Tax Officer Vs Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh Foundation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22836 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Since assessee had furnished all the details in respect of the alleged penny stock, reassessment initiation (beyond four years) is not valid.
Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22835 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - For AY 2015-16, interest u/s. 234B, 234C is not chargeable with respect to tax liability under minimum alternate tax.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22834 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 234B, 234C
-
Assessee was asked to submit his books of accounts and he has admitted to have not maintained any day to day stock register, sales vouchers, expenses vouchers and as a result, the AO has held that the sales and other expenses are not verifiable and the books of accounts maintained by the assessee were held not reliable and were rejected by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act.
KAMAL KUMAR VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2, BHARATPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22833 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83923&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 80IB of the I.T.Act is with regard to deduction of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings. In the instant case the job work / process of outsourcing is nothing but stitching of footwear and is done under the direct supervision of the assessee. It is an integral part of the whole process of manufacture of footwear undertaken by the assessee.
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) KOZHIKODE VERSUS M/S. VEEKESY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22832 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83925&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Appellant commenced the business but on account of poor financial viability the appellant company incurred losses and, eroded the entire net worth and was declared sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1956. A rehabilitation scheme was prepared and sanctioned by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Scheme envisaged joint operation of the plant on an irrecoverable lease of eight years in consideration of lease rentals; which has been extended from time to time.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) KOCHI. VERSUS M/S. PTL ENTERPRISES LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22831 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83926&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As combined peak credit of both bank accounts need to be taken to work out the element of undisclosed investments made by the assessee for the undisclosed transactions. From the opening balances in both the banks, it is understood that this is not the initial year, wherein, the assessee has made the undisclosed transaction. Since, this is the assessment year in which the fact of undisclosed bank accounts were discovered, the undisclosed investment needs to be taxed separately.
SMT. LAXMIYADAV VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-23 (4) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22830 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83930&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) that the merger in question, approved by the Hon'ble High Court is a colourful device, is illegal and without any factual or legal base. Invoking GAAR provisions, when they are not applicable for the impugned assessment year is also bad in law. The dichotomy in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is clear from the fact, that he chooses to tax capital gains in question, in the hands of the assessee company, though he holds that the merger is a sham transaction.
DCIT, CIRCLE-11 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. JCT LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22829 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83931&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondents had stated that in cases like the present, scrutiny and verification of the TDS amount utilised has to be manually done according to the established procedure. Along with the status report, learned counsel for respondents has now placed on record the established procedure.
CLEAN WIND POWER KURNOOL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE 73 1 & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22828 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83071&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the event, the petitioner follows the aforesaid procedure within two days, the respondents are directed to decide the petitioner's request within four weeks thereafter.
CLEAN WIND POWER KURNOOL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22827 (HC-DELHI)
-
Invoking GAAR provisions, when they were not applicable for the impugned AY is also bad in law. The dichotomy in the order of the CIT(A) was clear from the fact that CIT (A) chooses to tax capital gains in question in the hands of the assessee company, though CIT (A) held that the merger was a sham transaction.
DCIT Vs M/s. JCT Limited.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22826 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Where a trust is carrying on its activities for the fulfilment of its aims and objectives which are of charitable in nature with no motive to earn profit and in the process, earns some profit, the same would not be hit by proviso to Section 2(15).
National Payments Corporation of India Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22825 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Only those immovable properties which are held as capital assets and is in nature of land or building or both are only covered u/s 56(2)(vii). We agree with the contention of the ld AR that where the term property has been defined to mean a capital asset as so specified and where an immoveable property as so specified being land, building or both is not held as an capital asset, it will not be subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, where the agricultural land doesn't qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
SH. PREM CHAND JAIN VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE- SAWAI MADHOPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22824 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83910&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue would be recognized by the assessee on commissioning of a plant, however, in the backdrop of the complex nature of its business certain expenditure would certainly be required to be incurred between the stage of commissioning of the plant and final acceptance of the same by its customer. Assessee had to carry out estimation of such future expenditure and create a provision for cost on the completed projects.
THYSSENKRUPP INDUTRIAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UHDE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 10 (3); MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22823 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83911&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Any sum credited to suspense account or interest payable account shall be deemed to be credited for the purpose of tax deduction at source. Therefore, if the individual account interest payments exceed ₹ 2500/- merely because they are credited to the different account than the account of depositors, TDS liability of the deductor cannot be eliminated. But, there has to be provision of interest of individual account where credited to the account of depositor or to interest payable account is more than ₹ 2500/- for the FY, then only tax is required to be deducted.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW VERSUS SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22822 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83912&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee paid the above sum towards VRS of certain employees of Calcutta unit. It is noticed that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year. Vide order The Tribunal has decided it in favour of the assessee.
FOSECO INDIA LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 1 (2) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22821 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83915&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO in spite of having information in his possession, he has merely gone by the information received from DIT (I&CI) and shows non-application of mind on his part and failure on his part to carry out preliminary enquiry on receipt of such information and thus, the reasons so recorded and the very basis, that the assessee has not filed the return of income and therefore, the income on sale of property has escaped assessment, is vitiated in the instant case.
SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2 (2) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22820 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83916&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that Rule 8D of the Rules is not applicable for the year under consideration. However, some reasonable expenditure needs to be allowed for earning exempt income. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 10% of the dividend income. In our considered opinion, restriction by the ld. CIT(A) seems to be reasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for. Ground No. 1 is accordingly, dismissed.
HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE – 12 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22819 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Miscellaneous receipts can be sub-grouped into three lots i.e. (i) the receipts covered by the earlier Tribunal's order, (ii) the receipts, assessee never claimed deduction, and, (iii) the business connected receipts or otherwise. So far as sub-group one is concerned, we find the receipts is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09.
LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR AND (VICE-VERSA) AND ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22818 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83897&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.