-
In the present case, the AO only made a statutory disallowance u/s 14Aand under the circumstances, disallowance of salary was enhancement of income from a new source which was not considered by the AO.
TS-293-ITAT-2020(Kol)-Sugota_Industries_Pvt._Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22717 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Only dividend bearing securities should be considered for the purpose of disallowance under rule 8D(2) (iii) of the Income Tax Rules.
M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22716 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 14A
-
Since the deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act was otherwise allowable on merits, the assessee should not be denied the deduction merely because the assessee had filed its return of income belatedly.
Manish Soni Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22715 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · Section 80IE
-
Expenditure incurred in connection with acquisitions, shall have to be treated as capital expenditure and shall form part of cost of investment which the assessee could claim as cost at the time of sale of investment. A sum as represent expenditure incurred in respect of acquisitions which never materialised and hence, squarely allowable as revenue expenditure in as much as no capital asset came into existence of the assessee which would derive enduring benefit of the assessee.
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (2) (2), ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (2) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22714 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83708&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As regards the quarterly TDS statements for the F.Y. 2016-17, the assessee initially filed statements on 12/06/2017 and consequently the A.O. issued intimation u/s 200A of the Act on 15/06/2017 whereby the adjustment on account of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act was made by the A.O. These facts are not in dispute in so far as the delay in filing the quarterly statements. Since the assessee has filed rectification statements on 05/04/2018, therefore, the A.O. has again issued intimation U/s 154 r.w.s. 200A.
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VERSUS A.C.I.T., CPC-TDS, GAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22713 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83709&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
GP so declared in the earlier years is not in dispute as there is no finding that in the past, the assessee has obtained any accommodation entries as in the instant year and therefore, the contention of the ld DR that the past history cannot form the basis for estimating current year GP cannot be accepted. Once the past year results have attained finality and not in dispute, the same can form the basis for estimating the GP rate for the current year. It is clear from the details of the GP declared by the assessee for the preceding three years that the average of past three years of GP declared by the assessee comes to 10.22%.
M/S KEDIA EXPORTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-01, JAIPUR AND DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-01, JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22712 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83710&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present scenario where the assessee is dealing in items, which were available in international market also, then same practice has to be adopted worldwide and hence the necessity of availment of management services. Merely because the assessee was increasing expenditure on its personnel and other expenses, cannot be the yardstick for deciding whether assessee had any need to avail the services. It is outside the domain of Assessing Officer to traverse in such direction. AO categorically states that assessee had availed services in various fields, but it is outside his domain to decide whether there was any necessity to avail such services or not.
MICHELIN INDIA PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.) VERSUS THE JCIT (OSD) , CIRCLE-6 (1) , NEW DELHI. AND DCIT, CIRCLE-6 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22711 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83712&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case of the assessee where substantial activities were carried out by the assessee, since the date of incorporation which had culminated in raising loans, making investment in purchase of land, which was reflected as stock in trade and also advancing loans to associate concerns for purchasing different pieces of land, in order to fulfil the condition of Land Bank of 100 Acres or more, to develop the township in Haryana and where the assessee is entered into development agreement at the close of the present year/beginning of the next year, then assessee can be said to have set up and commenced its business.
JINDAL REALTY PVT LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-10 (1) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22710 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83713&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a fact that along with the appeal memo filed in Form-36 the Assessee has also attached a copy of Form-10 filed before the AO. It is therefore, not correct on the part of the Tribunal to observe in the impugned order that Form-10 was not filed before the Tribunal. Apart from the above, also find that along with Form-10, a copy of the Board Resolution of the Assessee trust has been enclosed in which the purpose for which the accumulation is sought is clearly set out as “for construction of temple, 'Upashraya, Dharmashala' and objects of the trust”. It is thus, clear that the order of the Tribunal suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which requires to be rectified.
DEVICHAND KESAJI SWETHAMBAR JAIN TRUST VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) (1) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22709 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83714&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Financial asset has been described in the Act as share or security and the assets transferred by the assessee does not fall in the category of financial asset. This view is further affirmed by section 2(11) of the I.T.Act, which defines the term block of asset for the purpose of depreciation. The definition u/s 2(11) of the I.T.Act includes intangible assets. Since the intangible assets are covered in the definition of block of asset eligible for depreciation, the same cannot be again covered under the definition of financial asset as per Explanation (1) (i) (d) to section 2(42A) of the I.T.Act.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 TIRUR VERSUS M/S. FEROKE BOARDS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22708 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83695&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No detail finding given by the CIT(A) as regards to how the concealment of particular of income relating to the confirmation in respect of unsecured loan/receipt of cash and insurance commission comes within the purview of Section 271(1)(c).
DEVENDER KUMAR C/O. RAJESH KUMAR GOYAL VERSUS ITO WARD-1 HISAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22707 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is very clear that payment made to M/s Metcon India is a bogus expenditure which was routed through own associated company in order to reduce profit from sale of land at Nagpur. The AO had also obtained external information and conducted field enquiry which clearly proves the fact of not carrying out any development work at Nagpur Land. In fact the position of land was unchanged when compared to date of purchase and date of inspection and this fact was further strengthened by the letter of Jt. MD, MSHCL. The ld. CIT(A) has ignored all these facts while allowing relief to the assessee.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, THANE VERSUS M/S. HALLMARK DEVELOPERS AND M/S. HALLMARK DEVELOPERS VERSUS JCIT, PALGHAR RANGE, PALGHAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22706 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83701&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ld DRP is higher authority, therefore AO ought to follow the direction of ld DRP. AO had neither follow the directions of ld DRP nor he had examined the submissions, documents and details filed by the assessee in right perspective, as noted above. Therefore, we direct the AO to examine the assessee`s claim in respect of provisions for bad and doubtful debts and adjudicate the issue in accordance to law.
M/S PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (2) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22705 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83702&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ld CIT(A) has returned a finding that possession of the said land was never handed over & land is still in the possession of appellant himself. Transferee, Shri Rajeev Singh has not taken possession of the property. Secondly, he has not discharged the sale consideration nor there is any willingness on his part to discharge the sale consideration as can be gauged by the fact that he himself has ordered and instructed his bank for stop-payment of cheques issued earlier by him towards the sale consideration in respect of both the sale deeds.
ACIT, CIRCLE-02, KOTA VERSUS SH. IJYARAJ SINGH AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22704 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83703&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had earned profit from F & O transactions in A.Y.2010-11 which was duly taxed by the ld. AO as regular business income. During the year, there is no change in the facts or there is no emergence of any fresh development in the case of the assessee company, enabling the ld AO to take a divergent view. Hence, revenue is not justified in taking a divergent view for the year under consideration alone.
M/S. MEGHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD. VERSUS ITO-4 (2) (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22703 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83704&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has rejected the book results of the assessee based on the facts and figured that the assessee after purchasing the products has sold the same within short span at a price lower than the purchase cost. However, there are certain undisputed facts that the books of accounts were subject to audit under companies Act and under section 44AB under Income Tax Act. As per the assessee the goods were of poor/inferior quality, therefore the same were sold at a lower price. The ld. AR in support of his contention drew our attention on page 38 of the paper book.
M/S. PANCHSHIL EXIM PVT. LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22702 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83678&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are of the view that the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of CAE Flight Training (I) Pvt. Ltd. supports the plea of the assessee for allowing deduction on interest paid on CCDs held that the fact that the RBI under its Foreign Direct Investment Policy mandates conversion of debentures into equity and such mandate will not make any difference to the allowability of interest on debentures u/s. 36(1)(iii).
IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [FORMERLY IMS HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD. SINCE MERGED] VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22701 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83680&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year for which assessment proceedings are pending before the assessing officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year. It has to be held that an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before appellate authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before Assessing Officer' within meaning of that term as envisaged under proviso to section 12A(2).
INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC) VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22700 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83681&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It should be proved that there existed reasonable and acceptable cause for not accepting the loans or deposits through crossed cheques or demand drafts. It was found that the mere proof regarding genuineness of the transaction or the intention in accepting the amounts in cash or that there was no attempt to induct black money into the business etc. cannot be considered as a reasonable cause or as compelling circumstances provided under Section 273B to avoid the penal action contemplated u/s 271D, with respect to violation of the provisions contained under Section 269SS.
N.S.S. KARAYOGAM VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22699 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83008&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is axiomatic that property sold is referred to as original asset and the original asset is prescribed as buildings and lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house. The expression a residential house therefore, includes building or lands appurtenant thereto. It cannot be construed as one residential house. It is well settled in law that an Amending Act may be purely clarificatory in nature intended to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act, which was already implicit.
ARUN K THIAGARAJAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22698 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83014&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.