-
The charges paid to shipping companies were not taxable, they were not expected to come under TDS provision.
BGS SGS Soma Joint Venture Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19463 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
For availing exemption u/s 54 on purchase of land-plot for house construction, there is no time limit.
Shri Varun Seth Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19462 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Since there was a violation of natural justice principles, therefore CIT's Sec. 263 order was quashed.
National Association of Software and Services Companies (‘NASSCOM’) Vs CIT (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19455 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
Management advisory services rendered by a singapore company to its Indian group company and management fee received by Singapore company therein cannot be taxed in India as Fees for Technical Services under Singapore DTAA.
Dimension Data Asia Pecific Pte. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19454 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
AO to allocate expenses to incomes on which STT rebate u/s 88E is denied and re-compute the rebate accordingly.
M/s OPG Securities Private Ltd. Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19453 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 88E
-
Sec.43A becomes applicable when the assets are acquired from a country outside India and does not apply to acquisition of indigenous assets.
Neuman & Esser Compressor Application Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19452 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43CA
-
Citing 'supervening impossibility' business loss set-off is allowed though not claimed in return.
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19451 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Since the 2015 amendment to Sec. 153C is prospective and not retrospective, therefore proceedings u/s. 153C is quashed by HC.
ANILUKMAR GOPIKISHAN AGRAWAL Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19450 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 153C
-
Non-intimation regarding assessee's death by legal representative, cannot invalidate AO's assessment orders.
V.Srinivasan Vs THE CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19449 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 159
-
Service-tax component of insurance commission payment to agents will not require TDS deduction.
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs THE CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19448 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Interest is integral to refund when the same is not less than 10% of the tax as determined.
Neeraj Kumar Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19447 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Since referral fees paid to US concern by assessee during AY 2012-13, neither FTS under Income-tax Act nor Fees for Included Services (FIS) under India-US DTAA. Therefore not taxable.
Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19446 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9
-
There is no such provision either in the Act or even in the relevant Rules to round off the valuation of shares at the next rupee.
Shresth Dealers Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19445 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Since once the royalty was held to be at arm's length no further amount could be attributable. Therefore quashes AO's 'FTS / royalty' characterization of Dutch Co.'s income citing variance with APA.
Spencer Stuart International BV Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19434 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)
-
Discount earned on Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds [FCCBs] buyback by assessee co. is not a revenue reciept u/s. 28(iv).
Pidilite Industries Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19427 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 28(iv)
-
Deduction u/s.37(1) for gratuity payments made by assessee (a JV company between entities of Bharti Group and Vodafone Idea Limited) during AY 2009-10 is allowed.
Indus Towers Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19420 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37
-
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty: Payment for 'bandwith services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the assessee only has access to services and not to any equipment. The assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services. All infrastructure & process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of the service provider and was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services
DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19413 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section9(1)(vi)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) 'Royalty': The insertions of Explanations 5 & 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2015 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1976, even if declaratory and clarificatory of the law, will not apply to the DTAAs. The DTAAs are a bilateral agreement between two Countries and cannot be overridden by a unilateral legislative amendment by one Country (New Skies Satellite BV 382 ITR 114 (Del) & Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) followed)
CIT vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19412 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
The reasons are the soul and heartbeat of the orders without which the order is lifeless and void.
SRI DEEPAK DHANARAJ Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19406 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Launch of prosecution proceedings u/s.276B against petitioner [a real estate co.] for failure to deposit the TDS deducted to the account of Central Government within the prescribed time-limit is upheld.
M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19405 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 201
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.