-
We modify the order passed by Ld Pr. CIT and direct the AO to examine the claim of the assessee and compute the addition to be made under clause (f) to Explanation 1 to sec.115JB of the Act independently without having regard to the provisions of sec.14A of the Act.
M/S TANGLIN DEVELOPMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (3) , CR BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22777 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83787&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the assessee has furnished all the information available with him. The learned assessing officer had the investigation wing report available with him. Undoubtedly in the report of the Principal Director Of Investigation, Kolkata dated 27 April 2015 contains the name of 84 companies, out of which one company at serial number 71 is Nouvea global venture limited (NOUVEAU) wherein total alleged transactions took place.
SHRI SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -25 NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22776 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83788&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On due analysis of record, we are of the view that the AO has unnecessarily created an artificial distinction. The assessee is not admitting other persons in the building. It is providing facility only to the students, and there are lots of rules and regulations, bye-laws for admitting students, according to their merits in education. Thus, taking into account overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
SHREE DESHI LOHANA VERSUS ITO (E) WARD-2 AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22775 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83792&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - It is not the requirement of law that the assessee, before he claims credit under the Indo - US convention or under IT Act should pay tax in India on such income. ITAT directed the AO to consider the claim of foreign tax credit as per the directions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd 382 ITR 179.
The Dy. C.I.T Vs HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22774 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10A
-
Even though the assessee had failed to bring on record any evidence issued by Thomas Cook in support of exchange of foreign currency with Indian Rupees, there was no basis for invoking the provisions of section 69 in the instant case.
Shri Rajesh Chadha Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22773 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 69
-
Merely because of the fact that such assessee could not get his name registered in municipal records, he cannot be held not to be the owner of the property.
Sanjeev Jain Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22772 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
-
Where the agricultural land doesn't qualify as a capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
Sh. Prem Chand Jain Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22771 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
Assessment order passed subsequently in the name of non-existing company would be without jurisdiction and a nullity.
Intas Lifesciences Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22770 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The activity of the assessee commenced upon the acquisition of the shares of the company. Thus, the expenses incurred by the assessee as specified under the provisions of section 35D of the Act, before the commencement of the business are eligible for deduction.
Addlife Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22769 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 35D
-
Genuineness of the donation cannot be considered while determining whether the donation is anonymous or not.
Bhartiya Kissan Charitable Club Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22768 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
-
ITAT - Since funds were specifically borrowed for infusion of equity in the associate concerns as such interest on borrowings further advanced to sister-concerns for 'equity infusion' in group companies not allowable as a deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii).
Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22767 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
CIT (A) has correctly accepted and found it correct regarding the amounts received as gifts from husband and from her father-in-law. CIT (A) confirmed the remaining amount owing to non-substantiation of the amounts received.
SUNITA RANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SONIPAT, HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22766 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find merit in the claim of the assessee that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its above claim considering the undisputed fact that all the documents were lost by the assessee in a major fire and procuring evidence to substantiate its claim therefore was a very difficult process.
M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 2 (1), CHANDIGARH.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22765 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83766&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As carefully gone through the entire events and the verbatim of the letters. We also tried to dwell whether the intention of the AO is to extend the period or conveying the approval of the CIT. While it may be an administrative phenomenon to intimate, inform the CIT about the fact of the special audit party appointed seeking extension, but statutorily that power is vested with the AO.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI VERSUS SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22764 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83767&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Remains and which having been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is the law of the land and has to be followed by all lower authorities. The interest received by the assessee during the impugned year on the compulsory acquisition of its land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is in the nature of compensation and not interest which is taxable under the head income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act as held by the authorities below. The compensation being exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act is not disputed.
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI (HUF) VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50 (5) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22763 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee received the order on 19.04.2014 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and has filed rectification petition with the CPC-TDS for correction of statements which is not disputed, and the same was processed and order under Section 154 of the Act was passed by CPC TDS on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act with the CIT (Appeals).Considering the provisions of law and the facts of the case, we found the assessee has challenged the order under Section 154 of the Act, which is permissible under the Law.
SHRI SRINIVASAMURTHY KOLIHALLY YALAKAIAH VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC – TDS, GHAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22762 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83771&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the assessee had made such an estimate, the assessee's obligation u/s 192 was properly discharged and hence, proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) have to be quashed.
Central Silk Board Vs The Income-Tax Officer (TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22761 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 201(1)/(1A)
-
ITAT - The investments made in partnership firms were also required to be considered for comparing the value of investments with the available own funds - Since investment in 'partnership firms & shares' higher than assessee's 'own funds', hence addition u/s. 14A confirmed.
Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22760 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 14A
-
As we revert back to the reasons furnished by Respondent No. 2 for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 after referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt of ₹ 23,98,014.00 and therefore, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
GATEWAY LEASING PVT. LTD., VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI, UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22759 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83033&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No doubt that in the instant case vide Ext.P3 stay application, petitioner has been directed to pay 25% of the total amount on or before 15.03.2020 and the balance amount has been stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The order in writ appeal cannot be said to be in knowledge or notice of CIT Appeal/the assessing officer while exercising power under Section 226(3). But despite that such types of orders are passed imposing a condition of payment of 20% or 25%. Be that as it may.
EUROTECH MARKETING VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22758 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83034&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.