-
The valuation of shares or for that matter any valuation in itself is a projection of future events or activities and no doubt it has to be done with some accuracy, however no person can project with 100% of accuracy and actual events are highly volatile and highly dependent on so many factors.
Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20792 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Assessee utilized 100% capabilities of employees without allowing the employees on bench, it had no idle employees on its rolls, it incurred no interest costs and it paid a rent amounting to 0.5% of revenue whereas in other cases it was around 5%.
Annapurna Business Solutions Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20791 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 10A
-
The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act for the instalments paid prior to one year from the date of sale of asset which is 28.07.20120 and, accordingly, the assessee is entitled for benefit of instalments paid on and after 28.07.2011.
Gulshan Arora Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20790 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Since the assessee has furnished the required details and constructed the small house at the village, where no approvals or permissions are necessary, we do not find any reason to disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO.
SRI PREMJI JIVRAJ PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3) VISAKHAPATNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20789 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81231&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee is liable to pay securities transaction tax when he enters into securities transaction. Tax is payable simultaneously after realizing the consideration. However, if that transaction is included in the total income of the assessee where the total income is assessed either under the provisions of the Act or under Section 115JB when tax chargeable on such income is arrived at, he is given the benefit of tax deductions of the amount, which he has paid under section 88E by virtue of Section 87.
VICTORY PORTFOLIO LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-17 (1) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20788 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81233&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Security services are to be provided by the Airport Owners and operators, who will in turn obtain it from any government agency specified by Central Government. Further, the facility charges are undeniably, service provided by the Airport operators to the passengers of the Airline assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that these parties are providing to the assessee services.
INTER GLOBE AVIATION LTD VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-50 (1) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20787 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81235&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Just giving the note will not serve the purpose. Admittedly the various details which have been referred by the learned CIT(A) were not before the assessing officer. Moreover after noting that he has himself examined the bills he has given a general assumption that expenditure must have been incurred for such transportation. When learned CIT (A) has himself verified the bills there was no need of giving such doubtful observation.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1 (1) (1) VERSUS M/S. AECO INDIA PVT. LTD. C/O. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY KALPATARU HERITAGE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20786 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81236&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
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) 20785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
DIT that the assessee had taken loss adjustment entries worth of ₹ 1,55,31,999/- in F&O and Cash Segment by way of CCM, re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 15.10.2015 filed objection against the said notice u/s.148. The AO rejected the objection by an order dated 05.02.2016.
DY. CIT, 4 (3) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S SETU SECURITIES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20784 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81220&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case there was an existing tax liability on the assessee to pay the taxes and, therefore, the Assessing officer should have adjusted the tax from the seized assets , hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has not complied the aforesaid requirement of provisions of section 271AAAB of the Act. Even otherwise, the assessee has also explained that it was not possessed of sufficient funds and the moment it got possessed of funds, it filed the revised return on 12.2.2014 and paid due taxes.
PALACE INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III LUDHIANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20783 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81221&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee was allowed the use of the software for its own business purpose and there was no permission to sub-licence the same. There is a specific bar on the assessee in not sub-licensing the software, which were to be used for its sole business needs. The consideration was for the use of software for its own business purpose and not for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software.
CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20782 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81226&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Shri Muneesh Kumar, DDIT (Inv) II, Raipur, has mentioned that Shri Subhash Sharma of Raipur is known to be a close associate of Amolak Singh Bhatia group and therefore, he is proposed to be included in the search. Similar observation in respect of other liquor contractors of the State is also mentioned in the note sheet concluding that in the light of above, on the basis of information gathered during discrete enquiries.
SUBHASH SHARMA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR, UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION RAIPUR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20781 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81798&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The phrase Reasons to Believe does not mean that the AO should have ascertained the facts by legal evidence. All that is required is that, the AO should prima facie have some material on the basis of which there should be reasons to believe of certain incomes chargeable to tax escaping assessment. There need not be any concrete evidence or proof available for coming to a final conclusion.
SANJAY AGRAWAL VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, RAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20780 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81801&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by the AO on account of alleged excess share premium was unjustified when those very shares were sold in the next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non-resident buyer and further there was no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) was liable to be deleted.
Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20779 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The reason why there is difference in apportionment between the Assessee and the revenue is because of inclusion of STCG earned by the Assessee on his own without the services of the PMS provider has also been included by the revenue in the income generated through the services of PMS providers.
Smt. Sudha Narayanamurthy Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20778 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Even otherwise, it has been held that financial stringency would not justify the non remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government.
KBR Infratch Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20777 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 221
-
On a reading of the impugned order passed by the AAR, it is evident that the said findings are only prima facie, which means, that they are not final and binding, and that they have not been arrived at after detailed examination of the materials placed before the authority or upon consideration of the rival submissions.
ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20776 (HC-DELHI)
-
The daughter and member of the HUF have given money for certain specific purpose. The source and genuineness of the loan has been accepted by the AO. The cash loans in question therefore cannot be said fall within the mischief of Sec.269SS of the Act as near relatives cannot be said to be “Other person” within the meaning of Sec.269SS of the Act. In any event in the circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash. We, set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and cancel the penalties levied u/s. 271E/271D.
MR. MOHAMMADYUSUF R. DARGAD VERSUS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, HUBBALLI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20775 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81216&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that the assessee had paid the impugned retention money as per the terms and conditions of the corresponding agreement with the other parties. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Chainrup Sampatram vs CIT settled the law long back that although anticipated losses can be allowed to be deducted from commercial proceeds at the first sign of its reasonable probability, the converse is not true regarding anticipated profits to be treated as income unless the same are realized going by the principles of conservatism and commercial prudence.
ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20774 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81213&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The organization to which the assessee paid interest viz., Karnataka Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board was an entity falling within section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and therefore there was no obligation on the part of assessee to deduct tax at source on payment of interest to the aforesaid organization.
STATE BANK OF INDIA [FORMERLY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE] , COX TOWN BRANCH VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16 (2), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20773 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81212&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.