-
The the AO disallowed the above amount without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time. The disallowance could not have been without a preceding inquiry into the claim made by the Assessee.
Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20832 (SC)
-
We restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to adopt the tax rate as specified in India–USA DTAA in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the DIT(IT) v. Credit Agricole Indosuez.
CITIBANK OVERSEAS INVESTMENT CORPORATION C/O DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP VERSUS DY. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) – 2 (1) (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20831 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer has already initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That being the case, the argument of the learned Authorised Representative that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the specific reasoning of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on which a part disallowance under section 10A of the Act was made, in our view, is hyper–technical and superfluous. Therefore, it does not merit consideration.
AURO GOLD JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE–5 (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20830 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81325&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
While upholding 10% of addition in respect of the amount distributed, the DRP have clearly observed that the TPO was not justified in making addition to the extent of 50%. DRP held that consumer numbers represent a key parameter for deciding the amount or placement charges and in the facts and circumstances of the case held that allocation made by the assessee with respect to the total placement charges received is fair and proper.
HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM LTD. VERSUS DCIT-12 (2) (2), MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20829 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81327&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Performance bonus does not form part of salary as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of Section 10(13A) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
SUDIP RUNGTA VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20828 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81330&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an admitted fact that in the present case the agreement in question was found during the course of search in the case of Shri Naresh Sabharwal and proceedings u/s 153A have been initiated against him. Therefore, the agreement in question have been transferred by A.O. of the person searched to the A.O. of the assessee for the purpose of taking remedial action in the matter.
SHRI ADARSH AGRAWAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-61 (1), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20827 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81334&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The appellant had furnished only the Annual Report depicting the audited financial statement along with copy of the receipts and distribution statements. It is also evident that the appellant had furnished a Certificate issued by the Joint Director (Audit) of the Co-operative Department. He has not furnished the report of audit in the prescribed form, Form 3CA, as required under the second proviso (as it stood then) to Section 44AB read with the requirements under Rule 6G(1) of the Income Tax Rules.
PEROORKKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) –I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20826 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81835&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them.
The Executive Engineer Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others Etc.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20825 (SC)
-
Though, according to the builder the transaction of the sale is concluded as and when risk and reward passes to the buyer, but in case of the assessee, who is a service provider, commission accrues only at the time of complete services are rendered including receipt of payment by the builder.
Goldmine Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20824 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There was no new material with the AO to initiate the proceeding u/s 148. When the proceeding u/s 153C has been initiated and subsequently dropped, thereafter on the similar grounds the provisions u/s 147/148 is not liable to be invoked. Assessee took the alternate plea that the notice u/s 147/148 was issued after the expiry of 4 years and no sanction was taken, therefore, the order is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law.
SHRI MOHAN THAKUR VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8 (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20823 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81307&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No material brought on record by the lower authorities or before us by the Ld. DR to substantiate that the contribution towards development fund was not voluntary or that it was in exchange for the services provided by the assessee society to the payers. Onetime fee paid by members who are aware that it could be spent by assessee only towards capital purposes was in the nature of corpus donation and not taxable as income.
VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1 (1), KOLKATA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20822 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81308&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The proprietary concern was succeeded by the legal heirs and the proprietary business was carried on by the legal heirs of the deceased by converting the same into partnership firm there is an inheritance of business and therefore, as per the provisions of the section 78(2) assessee is entitled to set-off business loss/unabsorbed depreciation of the proprietary concern against income of the successor partnership firm.
INCOME TAX OFFICER – 17 (2) (4), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. NARSHI NENSHI & SONS AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20821 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81309&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1) , PUNE. VERSUS M/S. AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20820 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81310&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The accounts are somewhat convoluted as regards royalty. While it is possible that it may be difficult for the assessee to immediately discover the persons entitled to receive the royalty on account of the licence fees earned by the assessee or the quantum of royalty payable to such persons, it is evident that the provision made to carry forward a certain amount during a financial year almost invariably substantially exceeds the pay-out during the following year.
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASST/ DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE 3, KOL & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20819 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81828&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions of Section 147 confers the power upon the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment and the said power has to be exercised only if there are reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, meaning thereby, existence of the reasons and formation of the believe on the basis of such reasons, is an essential condition for invoking provisions of Section 147.
CHAWLA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ONE ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20818 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81829&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner is justified in asking for interest on delayed refund of tax that was paid by his employer which has been held to be not payable by the employer. Once there is a refund and if there is a delay, interest is payable by the employer. There is no basis for denying interest on such delayed refund of the amounts.
P.R.Ganapathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20817 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 244A
-
Since the proprietary concern was succeeded by the legal heirs and the proprietary business was carried on by the legal heirs of the deceased by converting the same into partnership firm there is an inheritance of business and therefore, as per the provisions of the section 78(2) of the Act assessee is entitled to setoff business loss/unabsorbed depreciation of the proprietary concern against income of the successor partnership firm.
Narshi Nenshi & Sons Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20816 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no requirement in law to approach to the CPC for rectification of the order, if the assessee is aggrieved by the order and denies his liability as per the intimation received by him under section 143 (1) of the Act.
Dixit Rice Mill Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20815 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 143(1)
-
The services provided to the assessee are not any specialized services but only standard facilities, which are available to all the airlines and hence, do not fall within the provisions of technical services as provided u/s 194J.
Inter Globe Aviation Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20814 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It can be said that where a superior title is created before any income accrues or arises, it would be the diversion of income by overriding title but where there is no obligation attached and income is applied as per assessee's own choice after it accrues, it will not be a case of diversion by superior title as no superior title existed.
Emaar MGF Construction Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20813 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.