-
There can hardly be any dispute that this statutory provision prescribes amortisation of capital expenditure relating to specified items only u/s 35D which have been incurred before the commencement of business or after the commencement of his business, in connection with the extension of its undertaking or in connection with his setting up a new industrial unit provided in sub-section 2(i) and (ii) of section 35D respectively.
DCIT, CC-2 (2), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20812 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81281&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The object of the Shunglu Committee was to determine, if the purchase of 333 additional flats by DDA was according to the norms / rules and had not caused any loss to the exchequer. Its object was not to determine the cost or expenditure to the assessee, indeed, the assessee was never called to the proceedings of the Shunglu Committee, nor was any input / clarification taken from the assessee.
EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20811 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has explained before the authorities below, the circumstances of which payments have been made to the relatives and also expenditure as to what services they have rendered for the assessee company along with their qualification. In earlier year, similar salary have been allowed deduction by the Revenue Department. There is nothing unreasonable in this regard.
DCIT CIRCLE-14 (2) NEW DELHI. VERSUS KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20810 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81283&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addl. CIT and Ld. Pr. CIT while granting approval for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act merely stated “Yes”, which would show that they have not applied their independent mind and merely accorded sanction without going through any material on record. The issue is thus covered against the Revenue by the aforecited decisions in which even on more facts the approval was not found valid.
M/S. CHARBHUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20809 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ratio decidendi of the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench is that the 13th proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) confers the power/ jurisdiction to withdraw the approval to the prescribed authority i.e, ld. CIT(E) and therefore, the satisfaction of the ld CIT(E) is a must before issuing the show cause notice for the proposed action of the withdrawal of the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI, JHUNJHUNU. VERSUS THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20808 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81285&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Issue in the present appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has not placed on record any material to show any distinguishing features in assessment year under appeal. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view.
RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20807 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 vs. S. 263: If the AO has incorrectly or erroneously applied law and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Revenue should resort to s. 263 and revise the assessment and not reopen u/s 147. When matter was referred to the CIT for seeking approval, instead of holding that the matter falls u/s 263 and not u/s 148, has given approval u/s 151 which shows non-application of mind and mechanical grant of approval. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 cannot be sustained and is held as invalid in eyes of law
Krish Homes Private Limited vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20806 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Sections 147, 263
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The legislative intent is to apply s. 56(2)(viib) where unaccounted money received in garb of share premium. The AO has not made out a case that stated money is not clean money. Also, the assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report justifying share premium raised based on valid and prescribed method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms. AO has not countered the said report by substitute valuation. Also, if the shares are sold in next FY at much higher amount, the premium cannot be said to be excessive (Lalithaa Jewellery 178 ITD 503 (Chennai) followed)
Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20805 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 147/148: If the AO has failed to perform his statutory duty, he cannot review his decision and reopen on a change of opinion. Reopening is not an empty formality. There has to be relevant tangible material for the AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and there must be a live link with such material for the formation of the belief. Merely using the expression “failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts” is not enough. The reasons must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee
BPTP Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20804 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
The definition of work under that Section [i.e. Sec 194C] is inclusive and specifically includes broadcasting and telecasting. The deductees do broadcasting and telecasting work for the assessee and therefore, Section 194C would apply to the facts of this case.
Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20803 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 194J
-
Once a provision has been interpreted by the superior court, then it will not be open to the assessee to project an interpretation on the concerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the law laid down by the Court.
Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20802 (HC-KERALA) · Section 80P
-
It is not the intention of the Legislature that any person who sets up a hotel within the time limits indicated in the State of Uttarakhand, without any regard to the exact location, and the manner in which it operates, its impact on the nature , all such hotels should be entitled to claim the benefit.
M/S. ANCHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20801 (SC) · Section 80IC
-
The assessee had a window of three years period from 21.12.2011 till 21.12.2014 to construct a house property, calculated from the date of transfer of original asset. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the Respondents do not fulfill the conditions laid down under Section 54 (1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision.
SH. AKSHAY SOBT Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20800 (HC-DELHI) · Section 54
-
The finality clause contained in section 245-I of the IT Act does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not possible to state that this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20799 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Assessee has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.
PEB Steel Lloyd (India) Limited Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20798 (HC-MP)
-
Since the department had been unable to give any reason for not sending the complete application of government employee and since furnishing of the APAR for the year 2016 - 2017 was only in the control of the department, government employees should not be made to suffer and should be allowed to make a representation to the Committee to enable it to examine its grievance, as otherwise, a competent departmental candidate would lose-out in the recruitment process.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs ASHOK KUMAR SAROHA AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20797 (HC-DELHI)
-
The above facts clearly points to one and only irresistible conclusion that these gains earned by assessee were bogus and sham transactions to convert her unaccounted money into legitimate money through circuitous route of sale and purchase of listed shares of M/s Turbotech Engineering Limited which is a penny stock and the assessee is trying to take advantage of exemption provision as enshrined u/s 10(38).
Smt. Sudha Eashwar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20796 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 10(38)
-
FTS in terms of ARticle 12 of India-Portuguese DTAA covers payments for services ancillary to the enjoyment of right, property or information as per para 3. The payment in the present case does not satisfy the requirement of use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software, and further, that the parent company did not make available any technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to the assesse.
CMA CGM Agencies India Private limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20795 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
AO cannot make any addition or disallowance in the final assessment order which was not proposed in the draft assessment order unless such directions are given by DRP.
SI Group India Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20794 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The services rendered by the assessee entailed provision of support services in advising the entities globally on policies and standards based on international best practices support in terms of IT, financial functions, and other business support services. The services in question are independent services on standalone basis, and, as such, article 12(4)(a) does not come into play.
Kelly Services Inc Vs Deputy Commissioner of International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20793 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.