-
In this case, the assessee is into the business of diamond trading. The profit element in diamond trading is around 2 to 3% depending upon nature of trade. Even, the BEP had recommended profit percentage of 2% in case of trading and 3% for manufacturers.
STERLING JEWELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT-5 (3) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20752 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As before us no evidence were lead to show that the directors of the company Mr. Pankaj Jain and Mrs. Vaishali Jain are capable of obtaining such a huge orders of export of maize for assessee. Their biodata or their credentials were also not shown that they have any experience in the commodity market.
KS COMMODITIES PVT LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-14 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20751 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81129&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Liability of the assessee to pay at the revised price is an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability as held by the Revenue. The assessee was liable to pay the revised charges w.e.f. 1.12.2008 but the revised charges were not finalized though the maximum price which could be revised or increased was mentioned in the communication from GAIL. DR’s submissions that the price is fixed by the Govt. is also strictly not correct.
ANDHRA PRADESH GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20750 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81133&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Land deal in question was made by the appellant. Mis SMV agencies is also a company in the same group and the entire management is made by the aforementioned two persons. There is no doubt that a substantial amount of on money was paid and these amounts are clearly written in cash in the papers referred to supra.
CHARMINAR BOTTLING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 8 (1) , HYDERABAD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20749 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81134&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount. The expenses have been looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully.
M/S. MULTITUDE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 17 (1) NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20748 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81135&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest so earned thus was received by REC as well as all the Implementing Agencies including the assessee-company for and on behalf of the Government of India, Ministry of Power and since the same was to be used for cost of the project by way of adjustment in the last instalment of capital subsidy.
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (2), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20747 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81139&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We cannot understand as to how the payment of EDC-being in the nature of statutory fees, could be subject to withholding tax under Section 194 of the Act, a provision that is applicable to dividends. The nature of dividend payment is intrinsically different from EDC and, therefore, the apparent reason for reopening seems to be erroneous, irrational and fallacious.
BPTP LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20746 (HC-DELHI)
-
The Tribunal has merely referred to the decision of the Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and has not adverted to the facts of the case. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the issue whether the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act applies to the fact, situation of the case and whether the tax was required to be deducted at source under Chapter 17B.
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20745 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
The Revenue authorities did not dispute the fulfilment of conditions of Sec. 35AD or that the business is a specified business or the incurrence of expenditure for construction of the hotel. Once the conditions of Sec.35AD are fulfilled, the section, per se, not requiring any specific date of operation, the deduction thereunder cannot be disallowed.
Benares Hotels Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20744 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section 35AD
-
The losses resulting from CCM can be classified in different categories based on the extent and magnitude of modification of the client code, directs AO to delete additions w.r.t category 'Distance 1' - genuine error in punching of client codes of only one digit and category 'Distance -2' - since the modification resulted in shifting of profits/losses in both the ways resulting in it being detrimental to the assessee and confirms additions w.r.t other 2 categories.
Amitkumar Amulkhrai Shah HUF Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20743 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Merely because the assessee was successful in completing the paperwork very meticulously or bringing into existence certain documents, the statutory obligation of the authorities does not get absolved merely because the assessee produced certain documents. It is incumbent on the authorities to verify the genuineness of such documents also in the light of the attending circumstances.
Income-tax Officer Vs APJ Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20742 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Question of existence or not of a PE arises only if any part of its income is liable to be taxed as business income and since assessee's income is eligible for relief u/s 9(1) of the India-France DTAA, no income of the assessee is liable to be taxed as business profits in India and hence, the question of existence of PE becomes academic.
CMA CGM SA Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20741 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
If any loss is not be allowed to be carried forward as discussed above, then the revenue has the power to deny the claim of the assessee in that very year only. If the revenue has omitted to do so, the remedy provided under the Act for the revenue to invoke the provisions of section 154 of the Act or 263 of the Act or 147 of the Act for that very assessment year as the case may be and depending upon the facts and circumstances. However, the Revenue has no remedy/power to disturb such claim of the assessee in any other assessment year.
The Dharangadhra People’s Co-op. Bank Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20740 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · Sections 139(3), 139(5)
-
It is very clear that sec. 40(b)(iv) does not restrict disallowances of interest over and above 12% only on partners capital account.
Milind & Associates Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20739 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(b)(iv)
-
The prime objects of the trust are to implement the NEIA scheme through ECGC for the benefit of medium and long-term exports. The assessee endeavor to promote exports from India and to protect the payment risks for transactions for which ECGC is unable to provide cover owing to lack of capacity or commercial consideration. In other words, the assessee is to provide insurance cover to promote exports from India and to protect payments risks.
NEIA TRUST VERSUS ADIT (E) -II (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20738 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81110&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, it is not a fact that the assessee has not maintained any information as required under section 92D(1) r/w rule 10D(1). The facts on record clearly indicate that the assessee, indeed, has maintained a number of information/documents as required under the statutory provisions. In fact, the assessee has furnished segmental profitability at gross level.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–5 (1) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS ARJAV DIAMOND INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20737 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81115&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Acknowledgment reflects payment of taxes at ₹ 550/- only. Further, the assessee sought certain information under RTI, copy of the application is placed at page 12 with regard to the proceedings u/s 148, service of notice u/s 148 and also under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee received certain information vide reply dated 26/02/2018, placed at paper book page 13, against which appeal was filed before the Addl. CIT and then appeal was also filed before the Chief Information Officer.
SMT. NEETU TAYAL VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (3), NOIDA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20736 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81119&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer has recorded that he is not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee on the suo moto disallowance. The assessee has also not given any working to justify the suo moto disallowance. He made certain claims without supporting the same with figures. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction, that he is unable to accept the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act, prior to invoking Rule 8D of the Rules.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6 (2) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. WILLIAMSON MAGOR AND COMPANY LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20735 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81123&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The undisputed facts are that during the course of search proceedings itself, the assessee has explained the break-up of cash in the name of his family members. Such break-up is exhibited elsewhere. The undisputed fact is that cash was found from the bedroom of the appellant and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that it was in joint possession of the assessee and his wife Smt. Gomati Devi.
SHRI GIRIRAJ SINGH JINDAL VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE – II FARIDABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20734 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81124&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Subsequent to conclusion of assessment, when it comes to light that the assessee has had financial/ monetary dealings with dubious entities/ persons, giving rise to a serious and well-founded doubt about the creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction, then the endeavour of the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment in terms of section 147/148 of the Act should normally not be thwarted by the Court, if the same is done within the limitation period, and the same is not merely a case of change of opinion on the same set of facts.
RDS Project Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20733 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.