-
The show cause notice issued was legally untenable since it was compositely issued to 9 companies while the prosecution was launched only on the petitioners. The said notice was not issued as a show cause notice preceding adjudication or the prosecution. Captioned subject of the said notice was to keep the Managing Director informed and to treat him as the Principal Officer of the Company as also clarifies that the order u/s 201(1)/(1A) was passed only in the name of the petitioner-company and not against all the companies.
Dr. Viloo Patell Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20732 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
As the payments received by the assessee from rendering of the maintenance and support services does not fall within the scope and gamut of the definition of 'royalty' in Article 12 of the India-Finland tax treaty, therefore, the payments received by the assessee for providing such support services cannot be held as 'royalty' in the hands of the assesse.
Trimble Solutions Corporation Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20731 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee has filed revised return of income, the assessee has not filed any revised tax audit report wherein the depreciation at enhanced rate was stated to be eligible. Thus, apparently in our considered opinion, it is a case of clear non-application of mind by the AO. We also do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Authorised Representative that the AO took one out of the two plausible views because if the GPU and PCA equipment do not fall under the category of air pollution control equipment at all, the only view possible is that depreciation is to be allowed @ 15% only.
M/S. DELHI AVIATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT DELHI-3, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20730 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81086&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Facts on record do establish that the assessee had purchased the machinery and it was installed in its factory. When such evidences were filed before the Assessing Officer, the minimum which is expected from him was to verify the authenticity of these documents before treating the purchases as non–genuine. However, as it appears from record, the Assessing Officer has not conducted any effective enquiry qua the documentary evidences filed by the assessee.
PRIVI ORGANICS LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (3) (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20729 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Foreign currency forward contracts held by the assessee are far lesser than the underlying exposure on account of imports and exports. Hedging transaction entered in regular course of business activity cannot be treated as speculative transaction. It is not required by the assessee to establish a one–to–one linkage between the forward contracts and the export/import transaction.
UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE–9, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20728 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81089&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the assessee is charging for certain goods and services, it does not render such activities as commercial activities and the fact that the AO has accepted that the assessee is promoting public interest as provided in the proviso to Section 2(15), there cannot be any doubt that the assessee should be regarded as charitable organisation and given the full benefit of exemption provided to such organisations under the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS INDIA HABITAT CENTRE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20727 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The claim of depreciation must result in reduction of the taxable income of the assessee. This interpretation is in consonance with the spirit and purpose of the provisions of section 50 r.w.s. 50A, which were introduced to avoid double benefit to the assessee in the form of depreciation as well as benefit of cost on sale of depreciable asset. However, where no benefit of depreciation has been allowed to the assessee, there remains no basis for pressing into service, the provisions of sections 50 and 50A of the Act and the assessee would be entitled to claim benefit of indexation.
RRJ Infra Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs Dy. CIT-6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20726 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section 49(1)
-
Only land which is appurtenant to residential house can be considered for claiming deduction u/s 54 which is a question of fact which requires investigation into facts and the facts may differ from case to case. The land may be integral part but the same may not necessarily be appurtenant to the building thereon as the same may not be required for enjoyment of the Building situated on the land.
Shri Maduranthagam Selvaraj Ravi Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20725 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 54
-
The main object of the assessee is contribution towards planned and controlled development for the entire urban development area and such activity falls under the category of 'advancement of general public utility. When the activities of the assessee can be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business, considering the proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be for charitable purpose.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , AHMEDABAD VERSUS RAJKOT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20724 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81081&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not the case of the AO that cash deposits in saving bank account with Axis Bank has been not made out of cash in hand balance available with M/s. Orthonovo Joint & Trauma Hospital Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee was director. The cash book of the company is reflecting day to day cash receipts, out of said cash balance, the cash deposits were made in the impugned bank account.
DR. HARPRIT SINGH, C/O M/S. ORTHONOVA HOSPITAL VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE –II, JALANDHAR (PB)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20723 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81082&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision for meeting the liability for encashment of earned leave by the employees is not a contingent liability and is admissible as a deduction. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view, that as the provision for leave encashment had been made by the assessee on actuarial basis, therefore, the same being in the nature of an ascertained liability could not have been added by the A.O for the purpose of determining the ‘book profit’ under Sec. 115JB of the Act.
M/S CAPRIHANS INDIA LTD. VERSUS DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCL-36 MUMBAI. AND THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20722 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81085&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to claim deduction, the assessee has to satisfy requirements of Section 37(1) of the Act, which lays down several conditions, such as-the expenditure should not be in the nature described under Section 30 to 36. It should not be in the nature of capital expenditure, it should be incurred in the previous year, it should be in respect of business carried by the assessee and be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 VERSUS FRONTINER LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20721 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81733&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt was clearly a deductible amount for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Act. This position of law was undone only by the Finance Amendment Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2001. But the fact remains that the said amendment in law was effected in the year 2009 and it was not available on the date when the reassessment notice was issued in the present case on 31 March 2008.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20720 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81734&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has ducked the issues raised by the petitioner. The right to file objections to a proposed re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is a meaningful right, and not a mere empty formality. While dealing with the objections, AO should apply his mind. The whole purpose of this exercise is to examine whether.
M/S. TSYS CARD TECH SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20719 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81735&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The opinion expressed in this judgment is only a tentative view, keeping in view the limited scope of jurisdiction exercised by the respondents under section 197 and even more limited scope of jurisdiction being exercised by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the questions urged by the petitioner relating to the constitution of PE vis-à-vis contracts in question have been kept open.
National Petroleum Construction Company Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20718 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
Assessee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, a State University, established under ‘The Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970’ and notified under University Grants Commission. The exemption u/s 10(10)(i) and 10(10AA)(i) are available to the assessee in respect of the arrears of gratuity and dismissed the grounds about the initiation of the re-assessment.
INDRA KUMARI BAJAJ THROUGH L/H. SH. THAKUR DASS BAJAJ VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HISAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20717 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81041&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The satisfaction note is not recorded in the file of the assessee searched u/s 132 and documents claimed to be owned by the assessee was transferred to the file of the assessee. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C in the case of the assessee is not in accordance with provisions of section 153C wherein satisfaction note in the searched persons proceeding has to be recorded separately.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. GRACIOUS PROJECT PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20716 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81042&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has in his assessment order assessed the income in question under the head income from profession, though in the body of the order, he was of the opinion that the income in question was assessable under the head income from salary. He simply disallowed the claim of exemption made by the assessee and assessed the gross receipts as professional income.
ARJUN CHANDRA BHOWAL VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20715 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81043&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case before us, the view taken by the lower authorities has to fail on two grounds viz (i). that, the assessee had duly evidenced the source of investment made by him for purchase of the aforesaid two paintings; and (ii). that, even otherwise as the aforesaid paintings were purchased by the assessee on 17.06.2006 i.e in the period relevant to the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2007-08.
MR. JASJIT SINGH VERSUS DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-42, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20714 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81046&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee had disclosed all the items which were considered as reasons for re-opening the assessment, in its audited accounts and even the auditor had given a report of the same. In such a scenario, we hold that there is no merit in the re-assessment proceedings carried out against the assessee where the AO refers to the facts disclosed by the assessee and then record the reasons for re-opening the assessment, such an action cannot be upheld under the provision of section 147 of the Act, in case where four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year.
DCIT, HISAR CIRCLE, HISAR VERSUS DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20713 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81050&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.