-
The assessee has entered into 2 separate agreement, both dated 31/12/1996, the copies of which have been placed on record. By virtue of agreement for purchase of software business undertaking, the assessee has acquired the undertaking for a consideration of ₹ 25 Crores. There is another agreement titled as non-compete agreement which restrict FIL to compete with assessee in development and sale of software for exports market for a period of 10 years.
ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS INDIA LTD) VERSUS ACIT (INV.) CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20907 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81541&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted.
M/S CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD 6 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20906 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81544&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has claimed exempt LTCG by trading in shares of LTL. The details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been examined and inquired into by the AO. This is evident from the assessment order produced above and also from the documents available on record. One cannot miss the proposition that assessment made without inquiry is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
MOTILAL SALECHA HUF VERSUS PR. CIT-31, ROOM NO. 301, C-13 PRATYAKSHAKAR BAHVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20905 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the letter Dated 05.01.2016 was qualified and subject to documents to be supplied by the A.O, it is clear that admission of the assessee in the said letter was not correct and true because it was not based on any evidence or material if found during search. Thus, the Board Circular Dated 10.03.2003 (supra) would apply to the case of the assessee that the Department should concentrate of collection of evidence of income and should not based on addition merely on the basis of confession obtained from assessee through the letter Dated 05.01.2016.
SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI, RAMNATH BUILDING, OPP. BHAWARTAL, JABALPUR. VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20904 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81549&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Arora had relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Khan which has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer. In view of this law laid down by this Court, substantial questions of law as framed do not arise.
Sanjay L. Sonavane Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20903 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54F
-
Working in the late hours and passing this kind of cryptic order will not only affect the health of the officer but also prejudice the interest of the assessee. Though it may not be wrong to continue the hearing after office hours occasionally, hearing the appeals and making the tax practitioners, advocates and Chartered Accountants to wait till 9 PM to 10 PM on daily basis has to be avoided, and thus remits issue back to CIT(A) for re-examination.
Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20902 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Since sale of shares at face value was by mutual understanding and by consent of all directors because Amit Indubhushan Bakshi was instrumental in getting the investor who contributed allot for benefit of company. We do not find any illegality in transfer of shares at face value i.e. Rs. 10 per share.
Shri Rakesh Bhikhabhai Shah Vs Pr. CIT-1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Where the assessee has followed mercantile system of accounting and distributing the liability to pay to sales tax and not making provision in its books of accounts particularly when the demand raised on the basis of the sales made during the accounting year the assessee entitled to deduct the amount of sales tax on the basis of the liability incurred and even in the absence of entries in the books of accounts, the same is admissible.
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. – GSEGL VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHNAGAR RANGE, GANDHINAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81514&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji, has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay.
MS. SEENA DEEPAK VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20899 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81515&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Only an acceptance of it’s liability to deduct and deposit income-tax on the perquisite to its’ employees and, rather, doing so, would operate to save the assessee of it’s liability to tax u/s.115WA(1). The facts of the case are admitted and borne out by the record, being admittedly the same as for AY 2006-07, as is the position of law for both the years. The assessee does not admittedly accept its’ liability to deduct and deposit tax at source on the said benefit.
MADHYA PRADESH POORV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., JABALPUR VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20898 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81517&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assesee ex-parte for non appearance of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as in disposing of penalty appeals, when the quantum appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A).
BHARAT R. RUIA (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-47 MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81518&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The CIT(A) has also gone through the case and restricted the bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% of ₹ 1,97,383/- i.e.24,672/-. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has no objection to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Anyhow, on seeing the facts and circumstances, it seems quite justifiable to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. We nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) in question.
ACIT-27 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RASHMIKANT V. SHAH 310/12, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20896 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81519&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the respondent assessee has disclosed additional income of ₹ 12 Crore during the course of settlement, it cannot be said that Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1961. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commission, it is apparent that the application submitted by the respondent has been dealt with as per the provisions of section 245C and 245D of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 1 VERSUS SHANKARLAL NEBHUMAL UTTAMCHANDANI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20895 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81916&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20894 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 226(3)
-
(i) 56(2)(vii)(b): The amendment w.e.f AY 2014-15 will not apply to a purchase transaction of immovable property for which full consideration is paid pre the amendment. Mere registration at a later date will not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The Revenue is debarred to cover the transaction where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged (ii) Interest u/s 234A & 234B is chargeable with reference to the returned income and not the assessed income
Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20893 (ITAT-RANCHI) · Sections 234A, 234B
-
S. 83 CGST Act: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the power is not to be routinely exercised. S. 83 confers power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard Govt revenue but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power u/s 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power. If proceedings are launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person cannot be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued u/s 70 to him.
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20892 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It cannot be stated that the decision of the Tribunal is an elaborate one but on the reading of the decision it is seen that the reference is made to all the relevant facts which are necessary to make distinction between a Income from Business and the Income from House Property.
City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20891 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Sec.43A are applicable when assets are acquired from outside India, thus AO's invocation of Sec.43A is rejected.
Hueco Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20890 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43A
-
Since participation fees for attending seminar is not taxable in India, the question of TDS on aforesaid payment does not arise. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(I) is deleted.
Roche Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20889 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 195
-
The excess expenditure over income can be carried forward for setting off against income of subsequent years.
Improvement Trust Fatehabad Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20888 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.