-
It is not proper to say that if the deduction is refused in the first year of employment of the new employee then for the next two succeeding Assessment Years also, the benefit of deduction will not be available. Such an approach defeats the very purpose for which deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act is allowed for three consecutive Assessment years.
Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22597 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80JJAA
-
The trust is belonging to Escorts Ltd , it is the settlor and it is the beneficiary, that does not mean that it is the trustee also. AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that Escorts Limited is the trustee of the assessee. Therefore, the allegation of ld AO that Escorts Limited is also the trustee is devoid of any merit and based on mere conjectures and surmises. Further the sole beneficiary is Escorts Limited and Settlor of the trustis Escorts Limited is the major reason why the ld AO is refusing to recognize the above trust.
ESCORTS BENEFIT AND WELFARE TRUST VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , FARIDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22596 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83426&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO cannot reject the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee on the ground that such a disallowance under rule 8D will be more; that's putting cart before the horse. Quite to the contrary, an AO can resort to rule 8D only when, as per the prescription of Section 14A(2) “the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act”.
TATA INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (3) (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22595 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83427&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the activities carried out by the assessee are visualized Assessee is not engaged in any other activity other than education. Therefore, for this reason, we are of the view and hold so that the learned CIT – E is not correct in holding that assessee is not engaged in educational activities covered under section 2 (15) of the Act.
NIIT FOUNDATION VERSUS CIT (E) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22594 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Geographical difference, by itself, does not render an independent transaction uncomparable with controlled transaction. Geographical location, by itself, is not an important factor for deciding comparability of an uncontrolled transaction, its importance lies in being one of the factors which could affect the market conditions in which respective parties operate.
MOTT MACDONALD PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO MOTT MACDONALD CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22593 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case in hand, a perusal of the report of the government valuer reveals that the valuer has taken the cost of construction / Fair market value as on 31.8.2006. It is not the case of the valuer that the building was newly constructed on the date, rather, the valuer has mentioned categorically that the date of construction is not known. He even has failed to estimate the age of the building as on the date of valuation.
M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY VERSUS THE ITO, DALHOUSIE AT BANIKHET.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22592 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83434&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee herein is the distributor of software licenses of its AE. Hence there should not be any dispute that core technical problems could only be resolved by its AE. Unless proper and appropriate maintenance services are provided to its customers, it would be difficult to market the software licences. There is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the distribution of software licenses and their maintenance are inter-linked. Accordingly, we are inclined to agree with the contentions of the assessee.
PARAMETRICS TECHNOLOGY (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22591 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Had the principal amounts been paid promptly to the petitioners in terms of Section 269UG(1), it is the petitioners who would have got the benefit of the interest on the said amounts, in fact more, considering the delay in making the payments from 30.09.1994 to 21.07.1995.
Desiree M. Thakur and another Vs The Appropriate Authority and another
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22590 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, while the Assessing Officer has information that M/s JP Infrastructure Limited has advanced unsecured loans as referred to therein to its sister concerns, viz. Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd., there is no information to the effect that such payment was made for the benefit of the petitioner.
Jayesh T Kotak Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22589 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
It is open to the statutory authorities to grant relief to deposit an amount lesser than 20% if the facts of the case so warrant.
JINDAL ITF LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22588 (HC-DELHI)
-
The pharmacy store of the assessee was ancillary to the main object of running the hospital and therefore income accrued therefrom was incidental to the dominant object of running a hospital.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) Vs The National Health and Education Society
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22587 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 11(4A)
-
The notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show nondisclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22586 (SC)
-
Addition of the aforesaid amounts would amount to double addition.
Sarita Tyagi Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22585 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
The minimum guarantee amount paid by the distributor for acquiring the exhibition rights of a movie is a fixed expenditure for the distributor that is paid to producers irrespective of the fact whether the film generates a profit or incurs losses.
Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22584 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
The belief of income escapement based purely on audit objection is nothing but a shame believe in the garb of audit objection raised by the Revenue which cannot be the basis for reopening of the assessment in the absence of any changed circumstances on the part of the assesse.
Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd. Vs Asst. CIT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22583 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Even an indirect connection between the expenditure incurred and the income could prove the nexus between the two. The bank charges being related to the interest income are duly allowable as expenditure in the hands of the assesse.
Chander Mohan Merwah Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22582 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 57(1)
-
Intimation in Form-10 for the purposes of claiming the benefit of the Section 11 could be furnished by the assessee even during the assessment proceedings.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) Vs SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22581 (SC) · Section 11
-
Treating the actual forex loss as transaction carried out in forex derivatives, which was actually incurred by the assessee when the said loans were received back, is against the facts.
Ninestars Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22580 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
First proviso to Section 50C of the Act, is applicable retrospectively. It does not create any new right between the parties. It simply clarifies the existing position of law.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Vummidi Amarendran
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22579 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 50C
-
There can be various reasons for executing the two sale deeds, one such reason being to avoid deduction of tax. The vacant site purchased by the assessee which is adjacent to the residential house is necessary for convenient enjoyment of the building.
Shri M D Sundar Rao Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22578 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 54
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.