-
Charitable nature of the Trust would not be lost merely because the Trust profits from publishing newspapers.
M/s.Thanthi Trust Vs The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24623 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It would be impracticable i.e. impossible for the assessee to discharge onus u/s 68 where no actual cash inflow happened.
M/s. Rich Paints Ltd. Vs ITO-4(2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24616 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 68
-
Once CIT(A) rejected application of sec.50C, he cannot rely on DVO report to hold that assessee adopted a colourable device to avoid tax.
Smt. Sunita S Bathija Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24615 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 50C
-
Deduction u/s 10AA is to be given at the stage of computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act.
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24614 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 10AA, 37(1)
-
Where a partnership was dissolved, but the assessee either individually or along with some other partners continue to carry on the same business, the assessee was entitled to set off his share of unabsorbed loss from the firm against his business income from the A.Y. in question.
Sh. Yerram Venkata Subba Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24613 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Mobilization fee, as contended by Revenue, is an inextricable part of time charter service and since the consideration received on time charter services does not fall under the definition of royalty under the DTAA, mobilization fee received is also not taxable.
Smit Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24612 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Amount received by partner on retirement from the partnership firm does not amount to transfer, (as contemplated in section 2(47)) hence non taxable capital receipt.
Dr. Vithal V. Kamat Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24611 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - The whole transactions are to be understood in a holistic manner and cannot be construed as a colourable device or a sham transaction as admittedly there is no element of any income within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Act in this entire gamut of transaction.
Income Tax Officer Vs M/s. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24610 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The refund of salary by the assessee was not voluntary but was to comply with the legal requirements, therefore, the same cannot be considered as income assessable to tax.
The Dy. CIT Vs Shri Rajamannar Thennati
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24609 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The initiation of re-assessment proceedings and subsequent framing of re- assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is illegal and bad in law.
M/s.Tata Chemicals Limited Vs Additional CIT 2(3) (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24608 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since in the instant case services are rendered outside India in respect of which the employees received salary outside India, it cannot be said that the same accrue or arise in India and thus the provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) were not applicable since the salary is not taxable in India.
Ecorys Nederlands B. V. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24607 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(iii)
-
ITAT - Foreign exchange gain on redemption of shares at par is a non taxable capital receipt.
Havells India Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24606 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Income received from shipping operations in India by a Singaporean Shipping co. exempt under Article 8 of India-Singapore DTAA.
M/s. Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24599 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
ITAT - TDS compliance by licensee has no bearing on taxability of unrealized rent in licensor's hands.
M/s Vishwaroop Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24598 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - No TDS is required on payments made to foreign attorneys based in such countries, that qualify for the benefit of Article on IPS.
Shri Hariharan Subramaniam Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24591 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Providing information regarding an ongoing investigation to its informer is not only inappropriate, but also injurious to the ongoing investigation., and only a broad outcome may be communicated, that too upon culmination of the investigation.
PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX Vs RAJIV YADUVANSHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24584 (HC-DELHI)
-
The stock option being a right to purchase the shares underlying the options is a capital asset in the hands of the assessee under Section 2(14) of the Act.
Chittharanjan A. Dasannacharya Vs The CIT, The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24583 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Section 268A is a declaration of intent of the Union of India not to pursue its right of appeal under the Act under certain conditions, i.e., where the tax-effect of an appeal before an appellate authority does not exceed a specified monetary limit.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Anurag Shrivastava
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24582 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
-
The income, being in the nature of hypothetical income did not accrue to the assessee and is not subject to tax in view of Accounting standard 9.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24571 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
The expression general public utility as a benefit to a section of public distinguished from specified individuals, not necessarily beneficial to the whole of mankind.
ISKCON CHARITIES Vs The Director Of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24570 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.