-
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Centre has held to the extent that even if there is no commencement of charitable activities, registration u/s 12AA of the Act cannot be denied because the statute does not prohibit or enjoin the Commissioner from registering a trust solely based upon its objects without any activity in case of a newly registered trust.
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI VERSUS CIT (EXEMPTION) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22817 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83898&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provision of expenses payable account is naturally shown under the head sundry creditors/ expenses payable/ liabilities etc in the balance sheet at the close of the year. On the first day of next year, this account of Expenses payable is credited to the respective Expenses account of the next year.
FISERV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22816 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83901&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled proposition of law that for the purpose of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the threshold condition i.e. genuineness of the activities is to be decided with the object clause of institution.
Bar Council of Delhi Vs CIT (Exemption)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22815 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 12AA
-
Coming to quantification of construction/improvement carried out by assessee on plot purchased, there is mention of of some construction in the year 2005-06 being new building of 1400 sq.ft RCC roofing and shed 500 sq.ft with AC sheet roofing in valuation report dated 06/12/2012 by SPR Associates, placed at page 14 to Annexure 1 in paper book, The valuation report values new building constructed by assessee at ₹ 1,000/- per sq.ft and ₹ 800/- per sq.ft for shed, approximately valuing at 14 lakhs and 4 lakhs respectively.
SHRI ADITYA B LINGARAJU VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 6 (2) (1), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22814 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83882&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that under the limited scrutiny the Ld. A.O is required to keep his investigation and examination limited to the extent of the reasons for which limited scrutiny has been taken up. So his focus should be limited to the reasons but in such situation what is required from the A.O is to put best of his focus and pinpointed examination of information of the assessee so as to arrive at the correct income of the assessee. The file records should speak by itself that the A.O has given/delivered his best to justify that in the scrutiny for limited purpose, no stone is left unturned for the issues raised in the limited scrutiny case by way of in depth examination.
M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VERSUS PR. CIT-2, BHOPAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22813 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83883&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
PCIT perused the assessment order and assessment records and found that the assessment order dated 21/12/2017, passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
M/S STAR GEMS AND JEWELRY VERSUS PCIT-16, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22812 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83884&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is the date of search that has to be considered to be the relevant date for the purpose of applying the amended provisions of Sec. 153C(1) of the Act. As such, in the case before us as the search proceedings were conducted on Cosmos group on 24.09.2014, therefore, the provisions of pre-amended Sec. 153C (i.e prior to amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015) would be applicable. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we vacate the view taken by the CIT(A) to the contrary that the post-amended Sec. 153C would applicable in the present case.
RIDDHI SIDDHI DEVELOPERS P. LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 6 (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22811 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83886&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the assessee has not separately maintained the books of accounts, separate ledger accounts are maintained and claiming deduction u/s 80IA separately for the income generated from the individual units each year. As per the Profit & Loss account, we observe that the assessee is computing profits separately, from wind mills and in a position to ascertain the income and expenditure separately for the windmills as well as for the assessee's business.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS DEVI SEA FOODS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22810 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83887&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As on 22nd of April 2019 the learned CIT – A passed two orders in case of the assessee for same assessment year 2013 – 14 in two subject matters i.e. one was against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act and second was against the order passed u/s 154 of the act withdrawing MAT credit. On the legal advice, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was delayed by 30 days. According to us, delay was for the 'sufficient cause' and assessee did not derive any benefit by filing delayed appeal. Further, before ITAT, cause of justice must be served and pedantic approach should be abdicated.
FISERV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22809 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the assessee had disputed the assessment before the higher appellate forum, it does not deprive the right of the Revenue to rectify the assessment order or the tax demand raised against the assessee provided the action of the AO false within the parameters of Section 154 of the act.
Fiserv India Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22808 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 154
-
It is evident from the conduct of the assessee that the assessee was not intending to run a unit in Trump Hotel International himself, at no point of time has the assessee ever been engaged in running the Hotel Unit on his own. For all practical purposes the unit under consideration cannot be considered to be a business undertaking of the assessee.
Sh. Rohit Kapur Vs Add. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22807 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As evident from the conduct of the assessee that the assessee was not intending to run a unit in Trump Hotel International himself but rather he had purchased the unit while he was employed with an Oil Exploration Company in USA and he has given this unit for being run under the Hotel Operations and Maintenance Agreement to be run by the managing company.
SH. ROHIT KAPUR VERSUS ADD. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22806 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83818&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As relying on own case we restore the matter back to the file of learned AO on similar lines. The learned AO is directed to reappreciate the disallowance made by the assessee and invoke Rule 8D only if not satisfied with assessee's working of disallowance. It is made clear that if the disallowance is computed in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) then apart from the directions of Ld. CIT(A) to exclude certain investments, those investments which have not yielded any exempt income during the year under consideration would also be excluded as per the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of assessee's appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
VOLTAS LIMITED VERSUS ASST. CIT RANGE-8 (3) (2) , MUMBAI AND DCIT-8 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS VOLTAS LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22805 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83826&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As noticed that due to the bad conditions of the road and since it is hilly terrain due to the incessant rain and bad weather the conditions of the road are bad and, therefore, the truck drivers incurred expenses for repairs of the trucks, (frequent tyre burst etc.) for which the local repair shops insist on cash and were reluctant to give any bills/vouchers.
M/S. CAPITAL TOURS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-12 (1) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22804 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83827&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD., M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD. I is seen that the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of VODAFONE M-PESA LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND 6 OTHERS and restored the matter back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision with some directions that AO should follow DCF method only and he cannot change the method opted by the assessee as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
M/S. SIGNURE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 6 (1) (1), BENGALURU.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22803 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83829&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As perused the submissions of the assessee, the paper book etc. from which it could not derived whether the assessee has received from MPSEB an amount to the extent of 85% of the cost of the equipment. Therefore, obviously, the CITA) has accepted the arguments of the assessee of its face value. The various circumstances as existing in the instant case go to raise a lot of doubt in the entire transaction.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22802 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83055&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From perusal of clause (iii) of memorandum of partition, it is axiomatic that asset, which were taken over were forming part of stock in trade of real estate business and continued to be in nature of stock in trade in the hands of the assessee. There is no iota of material on record to show that the assets obtained by the assessee were capital assets.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 (1) , BANGALORE VERSUS SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22801 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83056&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Non-rejection of assessee's explanation in the assessment order would amount to the AO accepting assessee's view, thus forming an opinion.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3)(2) Vs MARICO LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22800 (SC)
-
Though the expressions expert information and advice, analysis, technical guidance etc., have been used in the agreements but, these expressions cannot be read out of context and de hors the purpose of the agreement.
RAMNATH & CO. Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22799 (SC) · Section 80-O
-
It is always open to an assessee to hold the same class of assets as investment and also as stock in trade. There is no bar in law for a person dealing in land to also have investment in land.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S JOGANI AND DIALANI LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22798 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.