-
Payment of commission was a normal trade practice in the line of business, and every business man pays commission to procure business.
SEAHORSE PHARMA P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (1) (3) VADODARA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22757 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue could not establish beyond doubt that the assessee was having substantial interest in CCNPL on the date of advancement of loan by CCNPL to JCTPL. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has specifically observed that as per the annual return filed with the Registrar of Companies, which is a legal and valid document as per law, the assessee was holder of only one share in CCPNL and the other shares stood transferred to the JCTPL.
THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA VERSUS SHRI GURDEEP SINGH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22756 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83749&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Purchaser of the property filed a letter before the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, would not be sufficient to conclude that the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty by the registering authorities had been disputed in an appeal revision before an authority as contemplated under Sec.50C(2)(b) of the Act. Apart from the above the AO made reference to the DVO before conclusion of the Assessment proceedings i.e., before 28.12.2018 on which date he passed the order of assessment.
MS. BENEDICTA MARY MENDONCE VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (3) (3) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22755 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83751&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Perusal of the order sheet does not indicate that the AO has taken the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT for expanding the assessment from Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny. DR fairly conceded this fact after perusal of the order sheet that no approval in writing was taken by the AO for expanding the scope of assessment so as to make the addition u/s. 68 of the Act.
SHRI PRABIR DAS, KARIMGANJ VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-KARIMGANJ
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22754 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83756&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order of the ITAT does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference and no substantial question of law arises.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 Vs Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22753 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the show-cause notice, would be a jurisdictional issue and can be raised before the High Court for the first time, even if not raised before the Tribunal.
Ventura Textiles Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Mumbai City-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22752 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
After the judgment of this Court in AICFL, the very basis for re-opening the assessment no longer survived.
Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (InternationalTaxation)-1(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22751 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Simply because there is difference in the claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and the corresponding income, the AO has made the addition which cannot be accepted when the Form 26AS gives a different picture.
Smt. Nirmali Bhadra Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22750 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
In the instant case, the AO has not invoked the provisions of section 69 at first place while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act.
The ACIT Vs Shri Sudesh Kumar Gupta
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22749 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Sections 154, 115BBE
-
ITAT - The instant conversion of the case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny cannot be upheld as the same is found to be in total violation of CBDT Instructions No.5/2016.
Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Add. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22748 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Once an agent has been paid arm's length remuneration, and the income embedded in such remuneration has been taxed in India, no further profits can be taxed in the hands of the Dependent Agency PE.
OT Africa Line Limited Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax- International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22747 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - The whole of the transaction shown by the assessee of the sale of shares is bogus, hence addition u/s 68 justified.
Himalayan Dairies Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22746 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
ITAT - Demerger not conditional upon the 'registration' of the leasehold property in the name of the assessee. Demerger expenses claim u/s. 35DD allowed.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Asian Hotels East Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22745 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 35DD
-
ITAT - AO in all circumstances is supposed to provide the complete reasons for reopening to the assessee. Reassessment proceedings invalid for furnishing incomplete reasons.
Wimco Seedlings Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22744 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) on commercial mortgages/loans. Deduction available only on short term housing-loan.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Repco Home Finance Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22743 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 36(1)(viii)
-
ITAT - Levy u/s 234E is mandatory in nature and the A.O. has no discretion to take its own decision. Also 'Reasonable cause' is no ground for deleting levy.
Block Development Officer Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22742 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 234E
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s.271B for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB as the question of audit doesn't arise where books of accounts not maintained.
Sh. Mohit Garg Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22741 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271B
-
ITAT - running transactions under a current account between holding and subsidiary transactions not under deemed dividend ambit u/s 2(22)(e).
Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22740 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Mere passive nature of income can't be a sole criteria for disallowance of expenses u/s.57 against interest income.
ACIT Vs Sh. Ijyaraj Singh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22739 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 57
-
ITAT - Commencement of business - Assessee had not only set up its business but had also commenced its business during the previous year itself by making investment in purchase of land, income from FDRs out of surplus money is not taxable as income from other sources and expenses incurred by assessee for the purpose of setting up its business allowed.
Jindal Realty Pvt Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22738 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.