-
In this case, the amount paid by the petitioner’s employer alone has been refunded back without interest vide 1st mentioned impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5.10.2012. There is however no discussion as to why the interest under Section 244A was not payable to the petitioner.
P.R. GANAPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – II (5)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20852 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81845&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 of IT Act and the petitioner was granted 30 days time for filing its return. If the petitioner was oversure that it was not a case of intentional escape of taxable income on nondisclosure, the petitioner would have satisfied the Assessing Authority by way of filing its return in compliance with the impugned notice but, in the present case, except filing return, the petitioner had taken all other course such as filing of objection and invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
SRI. NAVAL KISHORE KHAITAN, VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20851 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Pursuant to interim order passed by this court, the applicant has already filed the return of income for AY 2017-18, however, during the pendency of this petition, the validity of section 139AA of the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttuswamy's case. The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 139AA of the Act must therefore, necessarily fail.
BANDISH SAURABH SOPARKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20850 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in Rajkot District Co-op. Bank Ltd. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have to be for the remaining period of maturity.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO-OP BANK LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20849 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81850&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer that the discount allowed to the distributors by the Respondent – assessee company is on account of principal to principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20848 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81855&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital Gains from Family Arrangements: A family settlement which is a settlement amongst family members in the context of their 'preexisting right' is not a "transfer". Such a settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as a separate interest. However, if there is no preexisting right, the family arrangement constitutes a "transfer". Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement so as to hold that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain (all imp verdicts referred)
P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20847 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials and completion of work, only a percentage of net profit on total turnover can be estimated (Mohommad Haji Adam & Paramshakti Distributors followed)
PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20846 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 68, 69C
-
S. 54F: The words "in India" cannot be read into section 54F when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the words. The assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act though he has acquired house property in a foreign country. The amendment to s. 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 2015 is applicable only prospectively (all imp verdicts considered)
Rajasugumar Subramani vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20845 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
The title of the properties in the goods was transferred outside India, further payments were received outside India for offshore supplies. Income from offshore supplies is not liable to tax in India both u/s 44BBB as well as under the provisions of Article 7 r.w. para 6 of DTAA between India and Japan for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd Vs DDIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20844 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee fell within the meaning of eligible assessee as per Sec 144C, since the AO, in the assessment order, made additions on account of adjustment proposed by the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) and hence the AO was required to issue draft assessment order.
Olam Agro India Private Limited Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20843 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 144C
-
The share application money until the shares are not allotted, is capital, borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. Until and unless, there is an embargo and restriction under section 36(1)(iii), no disallowance can be made in respect of interest paid on the share application money.
Panarc Consulting Group Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20842 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
Since the Assessing Officer has initiated fresh penalty proceedings subsequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution, we are of the considered view that penalty levied on the basis of previous order, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and against which the Revenue is in appeal before us, becomes infructous.
Mcdonald’s India Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20841 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the FMV of the tenancy right as on 1st April 1981 is available, there is no valid reason to discard it and adopt the cost of acquisition as per reverse indexation method merely because it is more beneficial to the assesse.
Ajay Indrajit Thakore Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20840 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The TDS and corresponding income assessable to tax is so much interlinked that divorcing them and considering on standalone basis would result in a distorted tax/interest liability of the assessee under the Act.
Greatship (India) Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20839 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Fact remains that as on the date there is no change of circumstances nor the orders of the Tribunal are rendered invalid.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20838 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
CBDT had clarified that penalty u/s 272B is linked to the person, i.e. the deductor, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the form.
Veetee Fine Foods Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20837 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 272B
-
Though we acknowledge that admission is a best piece of evidence, here on the facts of the case, admission alone cannot be the basis for mulcting the addition.
Uday Shankar Mahawar Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20836 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
The assessee is not engaged in raising the FCCB with motive of any trading and discounting and thereby earning profit on the same. The allegation by the Assessing Officer of motive and intent of earning profit by the assessee are unsubstantiated with any evidences.
OK Play India Ltd Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20835 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Even if the AO issued 4 notices under section 142(1) but the information sought in all these notices was the same, then it would constitute only one default.
Shri Sandeep Verma Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20834 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 142(1), 271(1) (b)
-
Assessee fits into the definition of a co-operative society u/s. 2(19), despite registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and hence entitled for deduction u/s. 80P.
Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co operative Ltd Vs GOI, ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20833 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 80P
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.