All landmark rulings

1. Direct Tax ·Supreme Court · 18 Dec 2020
   Assessees have miserably failed to establish the capacity of the source and the genuineness of the transaction.

   SADIQ SHEIKH Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24825 (SC) · Section 68

2. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 18 Dec 2020
   Manufacturing or processing means transforming the original product into a commercially viable end product, distinct and different from the original product.

   The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ramacanta Velingkar Minerals

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24824 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 10B

3. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 18 Dec 2020
   The ten year period u/s 10B would begin from the AY in which assessee first claimed the deduction.

   Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors (I) Limited Vs DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24823 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 10B

4. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
   Section 40(a)(i) is a restriction on deductibility of expenses u/s 30 to 38. If the related expenditure is not claimed as a deduction u/s 30 to 38, this disallowance cannot be pressed into service at all. As the assessee is an advertisement agency and advertisements are placed by the assessee on behalf of its clients, there is ordinarily no occasion to claim the costs of advertisements as deduction in computation of its business income. The revenues, in the case of advertisement agencies, consist of only the commission received in respect of the advertisements so placed

   Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24822 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

5. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
   (i) A representative office of a foreign enterprise is not a taxable unit. The foreign enterprise is the taxable unit. A return of income filed in the name of the representative office, with the PAN of the enterprise, offering only the income of the representative office & excluding the other Indian income of the enterprise is not proper. However, as the error is inadvertent and without any consequences in terms of loss of revenue, a pragmatic approach must be adopted and the assessee should not be subjected to avoidable inconvenience (ii) As regards the taxability of interest income under the India-Germany DTAA, as the debt claim in question was not "effectively connected" to the alleged PE, the exclusion article 11(5) was not triggered and the taxability under article 7 does not come into play (Entire law discussed in detail)

   DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office vs. DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24821 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

6. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 17 Dec 2020
   Rejection of assessee's explanation and making additions will not automatically result in interpreting the same as furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

   Shri Babuji Jacob Vs The Income Tax Officer

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24820 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)

7. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 17 Dec 2020
   Additions in the hands of assessee's group companies of the same amount, does not make it double taxation in the hands of the present assesse.

   DCIT Vs Paramount Residency Pvt. Ltd.

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24819 (ITAT-DELHI)

8. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 16 Dec 2020
   Once the assessee bank is required to be treated an Indian company for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be open to us to hold that it will not be treated as a company for the purposes of Section 115JB.

   Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

9. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 16 Dec 2020
   A building legally comes into existence only on issuance of an occupancy certificate.

   Brigade Enterprises Ltd Vs The Add. CIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24811 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 22

10. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 16 Dec 2020
    Since the assessee's business is wound up during the AY in question, situation of carry forward of loss u/s 70(1) does not arise and thus, the loss incurred by the assessee cannot be disallowed by misconstruing the relevant provisions.

    M/s.Share Aids Private Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (OSD)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24810 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 41(2)

11. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 15 Dec 2020
    There is no obligation in law for deduction of tax at source on payments made for reimbursement of costs incurred by a non-resident enterprise and therefore the amount paid by the assessee was not amenable to witholding u/s 195.

    Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd Vs The Director Of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24803 (HC-KARNATAKA)

12. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 15 Dec 2020
    This plea of prospective application of clause (x) in Section 56(2) would not come to the aid and assistance of the assessee because the assessee has been held to be a representative assessee and not an association of persons.

    The Commissioner of Income tax Vs Shriram Ownership Trust

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24802 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(vii)

13. Direct Tax ·ITAT Jaipur · 15 Dec 2020
    Scope of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be enlarged and read and in the same context of requisition proceedings u/s 132A.

    Sh. Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui Mohalla Pirzadan Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24801 (ITAT-JAIPUR)

14. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 14 Dec 2020
    To attract the offence of Sec. 278 there must be material that the accused has instigated or invited another to commit offence.

    The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Vs Smt.Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram, Karti P.Chidambaram

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24798 (HC-MADRAS)

15. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 14 Dec 2020
    Merely because the owner of the premises searched was not the person named in the WoA issued under Sec. 132(1) does not imply that the search was conducted under Sec. 132(1A).

    SHILPA CHOWDHARY Vs PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)-I

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24797 (HC-DELHI)

16. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 11 Dec 2020
    Since the assessee's declaration was accepted and Nil tax payable was determined. Therefore, as per Sec. 4(3) of the said act, assessee is required to withdraw the appeal.

    Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24780 (HC-BOMBAY)

17. Direct Tax ·ITAT Visakhapatnam · 11 Dec 2020
    It is for the department to establish that the assessee has not made software exports or prove that the information furnished by the assessee is false or incorrect.

    M/s First Tek Private Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24779 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 10A

18. Direct Tax ·ITAT Chandigarh · 11 Dec 2020
    If sum advanced by the company is set-off against DDT paid dividend then such advance cannot be considered as deemed dividend as it would lead to double taxation.

    Smt. Sushma Bansal Vs The DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24778 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 2(22(e)

19. Direct Tax ·ITAT Hyderabad · 11 Dec 2020
    Though no development activity was undertaken as confirmed by Revenue, the development agreement was not cancelled and possession of property was not handed over to assesse.

    Santosh Kumar Subbani Vs Income-tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24777 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)

20. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 11 Dec 2020
    Assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case failing which CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.

    Numex Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24776 (ITAT-DELHI)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.