-
Dividend has to be paid to all the shareholders equally and dividend is basically a return of investment and not salary or part thereof.
Abro Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22577 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 36(1)(ii)
-
The outside lorry/truck owners do not have any responsibility or liability towards the principal, then it cannot be held that these outside parties were privity to the contract between the assessee and its principal. Therefore, the payment made to the outside lorry/truck owners do not come or fall within the purview of section 194C of the Act.
Bimal Kumar Sikaria Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22576 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) that the registration cannot be granted for the assessee as it is involved in imparting the training to the employees of the state govt, is incorrect and contrary to the law. For this purposes, we may rely upon the decision of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society and Water and land Management Training Research Institute and DIT Vs. National Safely Counsel.
VIBHAGIYA PRASHASKIYA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHA, C/O. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE CAMPUS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22575 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83408&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Department has no material to show that the earlier withdrawals made by the assessee has been spent for any specific purposes and not the said amount available with the assessee to redeposit into the bank account. There is also no evidence that the assessee has made withdrawals on various dates for any other purposes than the admission of assessee’s son in a medical college.
SRI. DHRUVA MUNGAMURI C/O. S. PARTHASARATHI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3) (5) BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22574 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83409&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has two main stream of revenues, one from NOP Project and from other project. Assessee is basically construction contractor and also indulged in developing and sale of project named NOP. On overall basis, assessee is following percentage completion method. Whether the method of percentage of completion method can be applied for construction contract as well as real estate development project with reference Guidance Note GN(A) 23 (R2012).
SHAKTI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT CEN CIR-8 (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22573 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83410&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee carried out repair and renovation expenses on a lease property which was taken on lease and any such repair and maintenance of lease property cannot be held to be giving any enduring benefit to the assessee, firstly for the reason that leased premises is for temporary period and nature of expenses are purely in nature of repairs.
ASPECT RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (2) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22572 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83412&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the assessee made an oral plea that the money had been advanced to the sister concerns on account of commercial expediency, the assessee failed to place any evidence to suggest whether funds advanced by the assessee to the sister concerns was in the nature of interest free own funds or the funds were advanced on account of commercial expediency.
MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22571 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83413&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO had nowhere abandoned reasons which were the foundation for issuance of the notice for re-opening. He had considered the objections of the petitioner and disposed them of on the basis of material on record. The sole ground of the petitioner therefore, must fail. In the present case, notice for re-opening having been issued in the case of assessment which was not framed after scrutiny.
SURANA ENTERPRISES, SURANA JEWELERS VERSUS ITO, WARD-47 (3) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22570 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83415&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There subsists an order dated March 20, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the revenue authorities not to initiate any recovery proceedings during the subsistence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interest of justice would be subserved by directing the banks of the petitioners to allow the petitioners to operate the bank accounts, subject to setting aside Rs.5 lakhs in a separate FD account against the demand of the first petitioner.
Narayan Chandra Sarkar. Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22569 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The activities of LO are in the nature of preparatory or auxiliary character in terms of Article 5(3)(e).
Union of India & Anr. Vs U.A.E. Exchange Centre
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22568 (SC)
-
The factual basis on which the Officer formed his opinion in the assessment order in regard to addition of Rs.2,26,000/ stands dispelled by the affidavits and statements of the concerned unregistered dealers in penalty proceedings. In such situation, the addition of amount of Rs.2,26,000/- cannot be justified, much less, maintained.
Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22567 (SC) · Section 68
-
Section 43B is a mix bag and new and dissimilar entries have been inserted therein from time to time to cater to different fiscal scenarios. The broad objective of enacting Section 43B concerning specified deductions referred to therein was to protect larger public interest primarily of revenue including welfare of the employees and Clause (f) fit into that scheme and shared sufficient nexus with the broad objective.
Union of India & Ors. Vs Exide Industries Limited & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22566 (SC) · Section 43B
-
The assessee company was formed to manage business on behalf of the holding company the purported mutual concern in the present case undertakes a commercial venture.
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22565 (SC)
-
In the present case, the contracting state is France and though under domestic law the assessee has to pay tax in India while deriving income from Indian territory, yet because of Article 8(2) of the DTAA agreement, Air France is exempted to pay any tax in India as its services/activities and profit thereof derives from pool participation.
Air France Vs Addl. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22564 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In the case of a capital asset, if it is transfer under any of the provisions of section 2(47), coupled with handing over of possession of the capital asset, capital gain is to be offered on mercantile basis in the year in which the possession is given. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A) in the case of the assessee, the land has been treated as stock-in-trade and the assessee has only contributed its portion of land to the JDA and is liable to offer business income in the year in which the stock-in-trade is sold. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has offered business profits in the AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 i.e. the years in which the Villas have been sold.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (4) , HYDERABAD. VERSUS CLEAN CITY ESTATES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22563 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, which is alleged to be an associated enterprises of the assessee, is not an associated enterprise of the assessee.
KAYBEE PVT LTD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10 (1) (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22562 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83398&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has paid interest on unsecured loans during the impugned year at an average rate of 10% which is demonstrated from the facts and figures of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon reflected in the financial statements of the assessee which are duly audited. The revenue has been unable to controvert before us.
CHADHA MOTORS, TRANSPORT NAGAR, LUDHIANA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22561 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83400&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has proceeded ahead and basis his own investigation and understanding of the mining process involved, and basis his own calculation and understanding of variables has worked out the quantum of clay which could be extracted from one of the mines owned by the assessee without referring the matter to the domain experts in the field of mining such as geologists and mining engineers.
M/S SHANTA SALES CORPORATION VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6 (1) , JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22560 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83402&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As considered by the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches in the case of M/s. Bartronics India Ltd. v. ACIT that when the assessee has not paid the service tax as required under the provisions of section 43B, which is also very much covered u/s 43B. The provisions of section 43B of the Act is very clear and it states that “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 (2) , KOCHI VERSUS M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS (P) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22559 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83403&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the assessment year involved is 2006-07. Rule 8D was introduced with effect from 24/03/2008 which was prospective in operation and cannot be applied retrospectively as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT. Accordingly, we direct the AO to disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. High Court observed in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd that sale of old and unyielding trees would not give rise to the exempt income.
ASPINWALL AND COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOCHI. AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22558 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83404&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.