-
From the perusal of the paper book, it is evident that one of the factor considered by the CIT (E) was denial of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. It would be pertinent to note here that while dealing with the issue of Section 12AA of the Act, the Tribunal dealt with the objection with regard to amassing capital fund and fixed assets. It was concluded that corpus created and the land and building was acquired out of donations, for setting up the school.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S THE RURAL EDUCATION & WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21021 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82126&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation as envisaged under rule 46A(1). It is evident from the facts on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) on his own has neither made any enquiry nor has called for any evidences from the assessee. It is the assessee who, on his own, has furnished the additional evidences to explain the information contained in CIB/AIR report. Therefore, the procedure laid down in sub–rule (2) and (3) or rule 46A, has to be followed.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–19 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RAJENDRA S. BHATE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21020 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81830&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Loss arising to a US entity upon cancellation of shares held in its Indian wholly owned subsidiary pursuant to capital reduction during AY 2011-12 should be allowed as long-term capital loss eligible to be carried forward.
Carestream Health INC Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: Application seeking open court oral hearing is rejected. There is no substance in the Review Petition seeking review of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) and the same is dismissed
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21018 (SC) · Section 68
-
Undisputed facts in the instant case is that the assessee has applied for grant of Direct Broker Licence to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 01.12.2010 which was granted to the assessee only in February, 2012, therefore in view of RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED we hold that the business of the assessee has been set up only in February, 2012.
MARUTI INSURANCE BROKING PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-16 (1), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21017 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81814&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the facts of the present case, the assessee itself has removed the defect without being intimated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the original return of income cannot be treated as invalid as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to remove the defect within the time limit permitted by the Assessing Officer.
B.E. BILLIMORIA & CO. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21016 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81816&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) shows that any amount received by an individual without consideration and the aggregate value exceeds 50,000, the whole of the aggregate value is liable to be treated as income under the head income from other sources.
SMT. CYNTHIA RAMONA CHELLAPPA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD – 15 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21015 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81817&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018. It is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to the claimant to offer explanation for the delay so brooked, subsequent to making the claim also vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary.
M/S. SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21014 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal had returned a finding of fact that the assessee had fled copies of purchase bills, copies of purchase/ sale invoices, challan cum tax invoices in respect of the purchases, extracts of stock ledger showing entry/exit of the materials purchased, copies of bank statements to show that payment for such purchases were made through regular banking channels, etc., to establish the genuineness of the purchases.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, MUMBAI VERSUS VAMAN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21013 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Thereby holding in favour of the assessee that the assessee is entitled to avail of the unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of eight years which was prescribed under the unamended Section 32 of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 VERSUS M/S. CENRAL ELECTRONICS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21012 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82071&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has prima facie case for grant of stay subject to conditions.
Genpact India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21011 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is the parent entity, who initiates demerger and incur expenditure for legal and professional expenses in relation to such demerger and the resultant company, comes into existence as a result of demerger only.
NIIT Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21010 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 35DD
-
The assessee herein has given advance for purchase of land in the year 2005 and accordingly acquired right for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said right constitutes capital asset within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act. Subsequent money received for giving up the said right constitutes capital gains in the hands of the assesse.
Shri Narayan Mandyam Veerabhudhi Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21009 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
The matter raised before us is debatable as to whether the mining of marble block is manufacturing or not and assessee had also intimated the AO. Therefore, the modus operandi in support of the claim is to be covered under the mining and manufacturing activity. Therefore, the matter being debatable cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act.
SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT, M/S. V.S. STONE VERSUS THE DCIT CIRCLE – SIKAR SIKAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21008 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere surmises and conjectures that the assessees had underpriced the sales value cannot be the basis for a pre-determined approach without bringing any third party transactions on record by the Assessing Officer. The available documentary evidences in the form of purchase invoice, sales invoice, various bills and vouchers have not been found defective by the Assessing Officer at any point of time.
SHRI R. PRATAP, SHRI R. PRAKASH, SMT. T.C. USHA, SHRI RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR AND M/S. VIJAYALAXMI CASHEW CO., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21007 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81792&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the absence of instructions and directions to implement the circular of Ministry of Commerce (supra), no deduction is permissible as per the Act. However the Act does not define the term services in section 10AA. The SEZ Rules define the services and the activity of the assessee is covered under the definition of services. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld.DR is not tenable.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) GUNTUR VERSUS M/S BOMMIDALA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21006 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81793&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are unable to accept the findings of the Assessing Officer that the investors companies are not having sufficient creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company. In light of same, we are of the considered view that the assessee company has discharged the initial onus cast on it in terms of identity and creditworthiness of these two investor companies as well as demonstrating the genuineness of the transaction.
M/S JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-04, JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21005 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81795&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled that it is not necessary that there must be mathematical precision between the fee paid and service rendered. All that is necessary is a reasonable relationship between fee charged and the services rendered. A burden of fee for an additional exercise by the revenue compels the assessee to exercise promptitude or otherwise pay an additional fee. The legislature intent is not to arbitrarily burden the assessee by realising something extra but to call upon the assessee to share the burden of extra exercise due to delay on his part.
K. NIRAI MATHI AZHAGAN VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21004 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82058&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Direction for refund was applicable if no notice would be issued within the time stipulated. In any case, the learned judges had the option to treat the writ petition as an execution application or could have given liberty to the appellant to file an execution application which as per the law of limitation can be filed within 12 years. This aspect has been completely over-looked and not been given due consideration.
KISHORE JAGJIVANDAS TANNA VERSUS JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21003 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82060&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec.234F fee is levied against the privilege granted to allow late filing of return and is levied to ensure proper and timely filing of return.
K.Nirai Mathi Azhagan Vs The Union of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21002 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 234F
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.